The Process of Moral Decision-Making in a Game-Based Narrative Scenario through the Experience of Future Government Workers

Abstract

This article describes the results of a qualitative study that aimed at investigating moral decision-making processes of prospective government workers using a game-based tool. Three participants volunteered to participate in the research process, which included playing a short point-and-click narrative game and a focus group. Data was analyzed through thematic analysis as well as narrative maps which emphasized players’ decisions. Analysis indicated similarities among participants’ moral decision-making processes, from initial experiment and struggles with the tool to the application of personal and professional experiences to the game scenario. Additionally, levels of empathic engagement were found to be conditioned upon participants’ approaches to play. The results of this exploratory study shed light into aspects of moral decision-making with serious games and allow for the suggestion of instructional practices to raise learners’ moral self-awareness through game-based learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology and Society, 11(4), 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bachen, C. M., Hernández-Ramos, P. F., & Raphael, C. (2012). Simulating REAL LIVES: Promoting global empathy and interest in learning through simulation games. Simulation and Gaming, 43(4), 437–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878111432108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 131, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barnett, M., & Sharp, C. (2015). The moral choice of inFAMOUS: Law and morality in video games. Griffith Law Review, 24(3), 482–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2015.1126399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bartel, C. (2015). Free will and moral responsibility in video games. Ethics and Information Technology, 17(4), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-015-9383-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD Research, 1(1), 19 http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bateman, C. (2017). No-one plays alone. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 3(2), 5–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bogost, I. (2008). The rhetoric of video games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning (pp. 117–140). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.117.

  9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Caillois, R. (2001). Man, play and games. University of Illinois Press.

  12. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., & diSessa, A. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Consalvo, M., Busch, T., & Jong, C. (2019). Playing a better me: How players rehearse their ethos via moral choices. Games and Culture, 14(3), 216–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412016677449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dane, E. (2010). Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: A cognitive entranchment perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 579–603. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.53502832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Denzin, N, K., & Lincoln, Y, S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203409527.

  16. Dickey, M. D. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(2), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02504866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ewell, P. J., Guadagno, R. E., Jones, M., & Dunn, R. A. (2016). Good person or bad character? Personality predictors of morality and ethics in avatar selection for video game play. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 19(7), 435–440. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Freeman, M. (2017). Modes of thinking for qualitative data analysis. Routledge.

  19. Frith, C. D., & Singer, T. (2008). Review. The role of social cognition in decision making. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1511), 3875–3886. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gee, J, P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1145/950566.950595.

  21. Gee, J. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-Learning, 2(1), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gee, J. P. (2011). Stories, probes, and games. Narrative Inquiry, 21(2), 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.21.2.14gee.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gordon, E., & Baldwin-Philippi, J. (2014). Playful civic learning: Enabling reflection and lateral trust in game-based public participation. International Journal of Communication, 8(1), 759–786 1932–8036/20140005.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gredler, M. E. (2004). Games and simulations and their relationships to learning. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 2(d), 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/08935690701571045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Greitemeyer, T., Osswald, S., & Brauer, M. (2010). Playing prosocial video games increases empathy and decreases schadenfreude. Emotion, 10(6), 796–802. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hafner, C. A., & Miller, L. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 68–86 http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/hafnermiller.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Holbert, N., & Wilensky, U. (2019). Designing educational video games to be objects-to-think-with. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(1), 32–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1487302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Huang, W., & Ho, J. C. (2018). Improving moral reasoning among college students: A game-based learning approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(5), 583–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1374979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Huizinga, J. (1950). Homo ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Roy Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ruslit.2007.01.002.

  30. Jong, M. S. Y., Dong, A., & Luk, E. (2017). Design-based research on teacher facilitation practices for serious gaming in formal schooling. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-0056-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Katsarov, J., Christen, M., Mauerhofer, R., Schmocker, D., & Tanner, C. (2019). Training moral sensitivity through video games: A review of suitable game mechanisms. Games and Culture, 14(4), 344–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412017719344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kessler, J, B., & Vesterlund, L. (2015). The external validity of laboratory experiments: The misleading emphasis on quantitative effects. In Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology (pp. 391–406). Oxford University press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195328325.003.0020.

  33. Klimmt, C., Schmid, H., Nosper, A., Hartmann, T., & Vorderer, P. (2006). How players manage moral concerns to make video game violence enjoyable. Communications, 31(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1515/COMMUN.2006.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lapum, J. (2009). Patient’s narratives of open-heart surgery: Emplotting the technological. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto].

  35. Magnussen, R., & Sørensen, B. H. (2010). Designing intervention in educational game research: Developing methodological approaches for design-based participatory research. 4th European Conference on Games Based Learning 2010. ECGBL, 2010, 218–225 http://www.globalconflicts.eu/.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Moon, J. A. (2004). A handbook of reflection and experiential learning: Theory and practice. New York: Routledge.

  37. Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D, K. (2005). The psychological foundations of everyday morality and moral expertise. In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Character Psychology and Character Education, (pp. 140–165). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press

  38. Patton, M, Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

  39. Peshkin, A. (1998). In search of subjectivity--one’s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rest, J. R. (1982). A psychologist looks at the teaching of ethics. The Hastings Center Report, 12(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.2307/3560621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ronimus, M., Eklund, K., Pesu, L., & Lyytinen, H. (2019). Supporting struggling readers with digital game-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(3), 639–663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09658-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ryan, M., Staines, D., & Formosa, P. (2017). Focus, sensitivity, judgement, action: Four lenses for designing morally engaging games. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 3, 143–173. https://doi.org/10.26503/todigra.v3i2.72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2005). Game design and meaningful play. In J. Raessens & J. Goldstein (Eds.), In Rules of Play: Game design fundamentals (pp. 30–37). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  45. Schmierbach, M., & Limperos, A. M. (2013). Virtual justice: Testing disposition theory in the context of a story-driven video game. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 57(4), 526–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.845828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Schrier, K. (2015). EPIC: A framework for using video games in ethics education. Journal of Moral Education, 44(4), 393–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2015.1095168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Schrier, K. (2017). Designing role-playing video games for ethical thinking. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 831–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9489-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Schrier, K. (2019). Designing games for moral learning and knowledge building. Games and Culture, 14(4), 306–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412017711514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sicart, M. (2009). The banality of simulated evil: Designing ethical gameplay. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(3), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-009-9199-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sicart, M. (2013). Moral dilemmas in computer games. Design Issues, 29(3), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Siyahhan, S., Barab, S., & James, C. (2011). Ethics of identity play in virtual spaces. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 22(1), 111 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228472248.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Squire, K. (2007). Games, learning, and society: Building a field. Educational Technology, 47(5), 51–55.

  53. Staines, D., Formosa, P., & Ryan, M. (2019). Morality play: A model for developing games of moral expertise. Games and Culture, 14(4), 410–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412017729596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wouters, P., van der Spek, E. D., & van Oostendorp, H. (2011). Measuring learning in serious games: A case study with structural assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9183-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Zagal, J, P. (2009). Ethically notable videogames: Moral dilemmas and gameplay. Proceedings of the 2009 Digital Games Research AssociationInternational Conference (DiGRA), London, UK.

  57. Zheng, D., Newgarden, K., & Young, M. F. (2012). Multimodal analysis of language learning in world of Warcraft play: Languaging as values-realizing. ReCALL, 24(03), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafael Leonardo da Silva.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

Focus Group Guided Questions

figurea

Appendix B

Narrative Map – Alana

figureb

Appendix C

Narrative Map – Kyle

figurec

Appendix D

Narrative Map – Serena

figured

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

da Silva, R.L. The Process of Moral Decision-Making in a Game-Based Narrative Scenario through the Experience of Future Government Workers. TechTrends (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00591-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Game-based learning, government training
  • Moral awareness
  • Narrative games
  • Serious games
  • Simulations