Standard
Principles, Theories & Models: Understand many theories and models, choose from among them appropriately, and apply them effectively.

Artifact Context
EDTEC 670 Simulations and Games
Spin Out Game
Group Project

I teamed with Matt Sherwood to design and develop an educational board game prototype.  We collaborated virtually to produce a playable prototype, play-tested it with students, then documented the process in a design document. 


Link to Standard
Of the principles found within the numerous theories and models conveyed in the COMET program, two specific models guided the motivational aspects of the Spin Out! game prototype.  Our instructional efforts would be wasted if students were unmotivated to play the game, making Keller's ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) model a natural choice in assisting us in designing a game that is, "appealing at a level beyond the novelty effect in addition to making it efficient and instructionally effective" (Keller & Suzuki, 1988).   

Dr. Dodge's reading list for the course included an excerpt from Lepper and Malone's book, Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning (1987).  Written over 20 years ago, the concepts stand the test of time.  The taxonomy derives from studies examining children's affectual responses to computer games, including educationally-oriented games.  We used the heuristic checklist to lend additional theoretical support to our design.  The checklist is divided into two categories, individual and interpersonal motivation.  Individual motivations "can be present in any learning situation, even those involving only one person" (Lepper & Malone, p. 248).   Interpersonal motivations are found in interaction with others.  Sometimes the two types of motivation overlap.  For example, competition generally involves another person but can also occur when a player competes against herself.

Challenges and Opportunities
The biggest challenge we faced was to create a board game that students want to play.  We initially envisioned a checkers-like game called "Mackers" but quickly moved away from that idea. Our next board design required players to move from the origin of a four-coordinate plane through a a spiraling path out of the plane. We then met with Dr. Dodge to present the idea.  He immediately identified graphic design elements that would increase the game's appeal.  After the meeting, we determined that a more visually appealing board would be one that capitalized on the automotive theme of the game.  The original design was also problematic because we were trying to stuff 100 pounds of math into a 10 pound bag.  We narrowed the scope of our content and reworked the game board. Once we settled on a board design the remaining game materials were less challenging to develop.

The next step was to play test-the game with students.  I tested the game with a group of students in a mixed grade level math course at my school. The high school play testers are categorized as high-risk.  They possess low skill levels and are on the verge of dropping out of school.  We determined that using a hard-to-wow audience would provide authentic feedback.  The students did not disappoint.  I provided only game materials and the instruction sheet during the play test to determine whether or not students could play unassisted.  Several issues emerged:

Rules - The rules confused students. Only 1/3 of the groups were able to get started without assistance from another student. We revised the rules prior to submitting the final project.

Pawns - The paper cars did not function as designed. The images were upside-down when folded. The pawns were also too large for the board and overlapped several "lanes" of the game board's path to the finish. They were redesigned prior to submission of the final project.  One student suggested we "use Hot Wheels next time".

Questions - The questions were too wordy for the students, many of whom are not literate in the English language. The original rules did not address the inclusion of the answer on each question which removed the incentive to work out the questions. Simpler questions rewritten by the teacher, or new questions written by students is a way to address this problem.

Visual Appeal - The students found the game visually appealing and one student described the game as "fun".

Overall Impression of the Game - Students felt that if the questions were "easier" and the directions were "better" that they would like to play the game again.

Professional and Personal Growth
Conceptually, this project offered the opportunity to lean more about Keller's ARCS theory.  I had not given much attention to the model, allowing Gange's Nine Events of Instruction to account for the learner's motivation during the first event, gain attention)in my instructional design.  I felt an "ah-ha" moment as I learned more about the model.  Looking back at my notes in the margins of the selected course reading, I see how I connected the model to behaviorism (the satisfaction gained by rewards) and to framing objectives in a different way than Mager prescribes (motivational objectives). 

In the classroom, I do not have the luxury of piloting instructional resources prior to implementation.  The project offered an interesting opportunity to rework elements of an instructional product based on audience feedback.  I've used many board games in my classroom without giving consideration to theoretical principles behind their development.  I feel that I am better equipped to analyze games prior to purchase and can provide more sophisticated justifications for expenditures.

      Malone, T. W. and Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning, volume 3, pages 223-253. Hillsdale, N.J. : Erlbaum.

     Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43-58.