Advertisement

What Computing Students Can Learnby Developing Their Own Serious Games

  • Matt SmithEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Most serious games are developed for student use by professional programmers and educational researchers. However, when the target student population are computing science students, then further exploitation of serious games to support learning can be gained through asking the students to develop the serious games themselves. Much work has been undertaken in recent years in the fields of problem-based and other enquiry-based approaches to structure and drive more independent student learning. Generally such approaches involve organising students into teams, and requiring the student teams to solve ‘problems’ over a period of time. Students gain many important ‘soft skills’ such as communication, working with others, and time management. Enquiry-Based Learning (EBL) drives student learning by having them design and develop solutions to complex, non-trivial, real-world problems, that require them to bring together many different aspects of their chosen domain of learning, to solve a task. In recent years such EBL approaches have begun to be used in technical subjects such as engineering and computing science. A computer game is a very appealing deliverable to ask a team of computing students to develop, since they already have a clear idea of what the software system does, and the importance of the user interface. This chapter first reviews several fields of educational and computing research, before describing several case studies in which computing undergraduates were asked (or volunteered) to develop serious games as part of their studies. The chapter aims to form an argument for the benefits to computing students of becoming serious games developers, and attempts to frame that argument with reference to existing research and informal analysis of the case studies described.

Keywords

e-learning Serious games Computing undergraduate education Enquiry-based learning 

References

  1. Angelo, T.A.: Reassessing (and Defining) Assessment, AAHE Bull. 48(3), 7 (1995). Cited in Bowe (2005, p. 103)Google Scholar
  2. Bal, M.: Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, 3rd edn. University of Toronto Press, Canada (2009)Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A.: Social Foundations of Through and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall, NJ (1986). Cited by Mahyuddin et al. (2006)Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J.: Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Open University Press, Milton Keynes (1999)Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J.: Teaching for Quality Learning at University (Second Edition). SRHE/Open University Press, Milton Keynes (2003)Google Scholar
  6. Blender Foundation: The Blender Open Source 3D Editing Application. The Blender Foundation, Netherlands. URL (last visited April 2011): http://www.blender.org (2011)
  7. Bowe, B.: Chapter 11. Assessing problem-based learning: Case study of a physics problem-based learning course. In: Barrett, T., Mac Labhrainn, I., Fallon, H. (eds.) Handbook of Enquiry and Problem Based Learning. CELT, NUI Galway, Ireland (2005)Google Scholar
  8. Brna, P., Bull, S., Dimitrova, V.: Learner Modelling for Reflection (LeMoRe). URL (last visited April 2011): http://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/bull/lemore/ (2011)
  9. Bull, S., Smith, M.: A pair of student models to encourage collaboration. In: proceedings of 6th International Conference on User Modelling, Sardinia, Italy (1997)Google Scholar
  10. Bull, S., Pain, H., Brna, P.: Mr Collins: A collaboratively constructed, inspectable student model for intelligent computer assisted language learning. Instr. Sci. 23(1–3), 65–87 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burton, R.R., Brown, J.S.: An investigation of computer coaching for informal learning activities. In: Sleeman, D.S., Brown, J.S. (eds.) Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 69–98). Academic, New York (1982)Google Scholar
  12. Champion, E.: Playing with the Past, Human-Computer Interaction Series, DOI 10.1007/978-1-84996-501-9_5. Springer, London (2011)Google Scholar
  13. Chatfield, T.: Fun Inc. – Why Games are the 21st Century’s Most Serious Business. Virgin Books, London (2010)Google Scholar
  14. Collins, A.: Cognitive Apprenticeship and Instructional Technology. Technical Report, BBN Labs, MA (1988)Google Scholar
  15. Cook, J., Smith, M.: Beyond formal learning: Informal community eLearning. Comput. Educ. 43, 2 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crawford, E.: The Women’s Suffragette Movement: A Reference Guide 1866–1928. Cited by Frasca 2007. Taylor and Francis Group, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  17. Davenport, J., Davenport, J.A.: A Chronology and Analysis of the Andragogy Debate. Adult Educ. Quart. 35(3), 152–159 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dille, F., Platten, J.Z.: The Ultimate Guide to Video Game Design Writing and Design. Watson-Guptil Publications, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  19. DiMaggio, P.: The Twenty-First Century Firm: Changing Organization in International Perspective. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (2001)Google Scholar
  20. Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., Beale, R.: Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, London (1997)Google Scholar
  21. Donnelly, R.: Investigating the Effectiveness of Teaching ‘Online Learning’ in a Problem-based Learning Classroom Environment. In: Savin-Baden, M., Wilkie, K. (eds.) Challenging Research into Problem-Based Learning (pp. 50–64). Open University Press, Milton Keynes (2004)Google Scholar
  22. Electronic Arts: Bulletstorm Computer Game. EA Game, Redwood City, CA (2011)Google Scholar
  23. El-Nasr, M.S., Smith, B.K.: Learning Through Game Modding. ACM Comput. Entertain. 4(1) (2006)Google Scholar
  24. Financial Times: Financial Times, September 2005, London, UK (2005)Google Scholar
  25. Frasca, G.: Ludology meets Narratology: Similitude and Differences Between (video) Games and Narrative. Finnish Version Originally Published in Parnasso 3, pp. 365–371 (1999)Google Scholar
  26. Frasca, G.: Simulation versus narrative: Introduction to ludology. In: Wolf, M.J.P., Perron, B. (eds.) The Video Game Theory Reader (pp. 221–223), Routledge, London (2003)Google Scholar
  27. Frasca, G.: Play the Message: Play, Game and Videogame Rhetoric. Unpublished PhD dissertation. IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark (2007)Google Scholar
  28. Fullerton, T.: Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA (2008)Google Scholar
  29. Giffin, J.: Bullets, beats and bleeding hearts (Life and Culture, p. 12). In: The Irish Times, Wednesday 9 March 2011, Dublin, Ireland (2011)Google Scholar
  30. Grabinger, R., Dunlap, C.: Rich environments for active learning. Assoc. Learn. Technol. J. 3(2), 5–34 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huizinga, J.: Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Translation of the original: (1950), Roy Publishers, New York (1938). Cited by Pearce C (2009)Google Scholar
  32. Hutchings, W.: Enquiry-Based Learning: Definitions and Rationale. Report from Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning, University of Manchester, UK (2009)Google Scholar
  33. Hutchings, W., O’Rourke, K.: Medical studies to literary studies: Adapting paradigms of problem-based learning process for new disciplines. In: Savin-Baden, M., Wilkie, K. (eds.) Challenging Research into Problem-Based Learning (pp. 50–64). Open University Press, Buckingham (2004)Google Scholar
  34. Juul, J.: A Clash between Game and Narrative. English Translation of Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Copenhagen, 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  35. Juul, J.: A Casual Revolution: Reinventing Video Games and their Players. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2010)Google Scholar
  36. Kafai, Y.B.: Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games Cult. 1(1), 36–40 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Knowles, M.S.: The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy Versus Pedagogy. Association Press, New York (1970). Cited in Davenport and Davenport: (1985)Google Scholar
  38. Koster, R.: A Theory of Fun. Paraglyph Press, Scottsdale, AZ (2005)Google Scholar
  39. Krug, S.: Don’t Make Me Think – A Common Sense Approach to Webs Usability. QUE. Indianapolis, IN (2000)Google Scholar
  40. Lalande, A.: Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie. Librairie Félix Alcan, Paris, France (1928). Cited by Frasca (2007)Google Scholar
  41. Laurel, B.: Computers as Theatre. Addison-Wesley, London (1993)Google Scholar
  42. Laurillard, D.: Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. Routledge, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  43. Laurillard, D.: Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technologies, 2nd edn. Routledge, London (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lego Group: Lego Mindstorms Robot Programming. Lego Group, Denmark. URL (Last visited April 2011): mindstorms.lego.com (2011)Google Scholar
  45. Macdonald, R.: Chapter 9. Assessment strategies for enquiry and problem based learning. In: Barrett, T., Mac Labhrainn, I., Fallon, H. (eds.) Handbook of Enquiry and Problem Based Learning. CELT, NUI Galway, Galway (2005)Google Scholar
  46. Mahyuddin, R., Elias, H., Cheong, L.S., Muhamad, M F Noordin, N., Abdullah, M.C.: The Relationship between Students’ Self Efficacy and their English Language Achievement. J. Educ. Educ. 21, 61–71 (2006)Google Scholar
  47. Mäkila, T., Hakonen, H., Smed, J., Best, A.: Three Approaches Towards Teaching Game Production. In: Kankaanranta, M., Neittaanmäki, P. (eds.) Design and Use of Serious Games. Springer, Berlin, German (2009)Google Scholar
  48. Malone, T.: What makes computer games fun? BYTE 6, 258–277 (1981)Google Scholar
  49. Margolis, E. (ed.): The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education. Routledge, New York (2001) Cited in Bowe (2005, p. 103)Google Scholar
  50. Mauffette, Y., Kandlbinder, P., Soucisse, A.: The Problem in Problem-based Learning is the Problems: But do they Motivate Students? In: Savin-Baden, M., Wilkie, K. (eds.) Challenging Research into Problem-based learning (pp. 50–64). Open University Press, Buckingham (2004)Google Scholar
  51. Mäyrä, F.: An Introduction to Game Studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2008)Google Scholar
  52. McGuinness, C.: Personal communications with the author. March 2011, Institute of Technology Blanchardstown, Dublin, Ireland. URL (last visited March 2011): colmmcguinness.org/live/fs.htm (2011)Google Scholar
  53. McLoughlin, J.: Chapter 18. Co-ordinating and Managing PBL Programmes – Challenges and Strategies. In: Barrett, T., Mac Labhrainn, I., Fallon, H. (eds.) Handbook of Enquiry & Problem Based Learning. CELT, NUI Galway, Galway (2005)Google Scholar
  54. Microsoft Corporation: Xbox Kinect. Microsoft Corporation, WA, USA. URL (last visited April 2011): http://www.xbox.com/en-IE/Kinect (2011)
  55. Muzyka: Quotation appearing in Griffin (2011) (2011)Google Scholar
  56. Papert, S. (1993a) Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas, 2nd edn. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Papert, S. (1993b) The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. Cited by Kafai. Basic Books, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  58. Pearce, C.: Communities of Play. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2009)Google Scholar
  59. Piaget, J.: The Origins of Intelligence in Children (Trans., Cook, M.). International Universities Press, New York (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. PIXEL Learning: Teacher’s Guide & Resource Pack. PIXEL Learning Limited, UK. URL (last visited March 2011): http://www.thebusiness-game.com (2005)
  61. PIXEL Learning: Evidence that using Games-based eLearning (G-beL) can lead to significant benefits for learners and organisations (White Paper). PIXEL Learning Limited, UK. (last visited March 2011): http://www.pixellearning.com (2011)
  62. Prensky, M.: Digital Game-Based Learning. Paragon House, St. Paul, MN (2001)Google Scholar
  63. Prensky, M.: Don’t Bother Me Mom – I’m Learning. Paragon House, St. Paul, MN (2006)Google Scholar
  64. Ramsden, P.: Leaning to Teach in Higher Education. Routledge, London (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rockstar Games: Grand Theft Auto Computer Game. Rockstar Games, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  66. Savery, J.R.: Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdiscip. J. Prob. Based Learn. 1, 1 (2006)Google Scholar
  67. Schechner, R.: Playing. Play Cult. 1, 1 (1988). Cited in Pearce C (2009)Google Scholar
  68. Schell, J.: The Art of Game Design – A Book of Lenses. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlinton, MA (2008)Google Scholar
  69. Schunk, D.H.: Self-efficacy and achievement behaviours. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 1, 173–208 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Smith, A.: Personal communications with the author. April 2011, Institute of Technology Blanchardstown, Dublin, Ireland (2011a)Google Scholar
  71. Smith, M.: Personal communications with undergraduates in recent years. Institute of Technology Blanchardstown, Dublin, Ireland (2011b)Google Scholar
  72. Smith, M., Cook, J., Oliver, M.: Learning Through Dialogue (LTD): A toolkit to support the process of planning for effective use of dialogue in learning. In: Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2004, World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Lugano, Switzerland (2004)Google Scholar
  73. Smith, M., Gallery, R., McSweeney, D.: SECASE: An EU project creating multimedia learning materials for the teaching of software engineering. ED-TECH 2008, IT Dundalk, Ireland, June 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  74. THQ: Costume Quest (computer game). THQ Incorporated (computer game publisher). CA, USA. URL (last visited April 2011): http://www.thq.com (2010)
  75. Unity Technologies: The Unity 3D game engine. Developed and distributed by Unity Technologies, USA. URL (last visited March 2011): http://www.unity3d.com (2011)
  76. Uselab: Aqua Energizer computer game. Published by Miniclip.com. URL (last visited March 2011): http://www.miniclip.com/games/aqua-energizer/en/ (2001)
  77. Verenikina, I.: Understanding Scaffolding and the ZPD in Education Research. In: AARE-2003, Proceedings of Australian Association of Research in Education (2003)Google Scholar
  78. Vygotsky, L.S.: Thought and Language. MIT Press, CA (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wells, G.: Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge University Press, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wilson, B.C.: A Study of Factors Promoting Success in Computer Science Including Gender Differences. Comput. Sci. Educ. 12(1–2), 141–164 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Yee, N.: Ariadne – Understanding MMORPG Addiction. October 2002. http://www.nickyee.com/hub/additiction/home.html (2002)
  82. Zeschuk, G.: Quotation appearing in Griffin (2011) (2011)Google Scholar
  83. Zimmerman, B.J.: Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 82–91 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsInstitute of Technology BlanchardstownDublin 15Republic of Ireland

Personalised recommendations