Heuristic Evaluation of an Information Literacy Game

  • Yan Ru Guo
  • Dion Hoe-Lian Goh
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10075)


Libraries have tapped on the popularity of digital game-based learning to promote information literacy (IL) education to students. However, among the many IL games that have been developed, evaluations have mostly relied on anecdotal quotations, or procedures which were neither systematic nor rigorous. This study fills in this gap by adopting the heuristic evaluation method with end-users to evaluate Library Escape, an IL game for tertiary students. Participants identified problems with the game according to the Heuristic Evaluation of Playability (HEP) framework. Useful feedback was gathered, as well as suggestions on how to improve it. We proposed to extend the HEP framework by including two more categories on characters/graphics and pedagogical effectiveness. Implication and limitations of this study are discussed, and directions for future work are pointed out.


Digital game-based learning Game design Information literacy Heuristic evaluation Heuristic Evaluation of Playability 


  1. 1.
    Gee, J.P.: What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Comput. Entertainment 1(1), 20 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Markey, K., Leeder, C., Rieh, S.Y.: Designing Online Information Literacy Games Students Want to Play. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beck, D., Callison, R., Fudrow, J., Hood, D.: Your library instruction is in another castle: developing information literacy based video games at Carnegie Mellon University. In: Harris, A., Rice, S.E. (eds.) Gaming in Academic Libraries: Collections, Marketing and Information Literacy, pp. 135–148. Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guo, Y.R., Goh, D.H.-L.: The Design of an Information Literacy Game. In: Tuamsuk, K., Jatowt, A., Rasmussen, E. (eds.) ICADL 2014. LNCS, vol. 8839, pp. 354–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12823-8_37 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baxter, K., Courage, C., Caine, K.: Evaluation methods. In: Baxter, K., Courage, C., Caine, K. (eds.) Understanding Your Users, 2nd edn, pp. 430–446. Morgan Kaufmann, Boston (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rice, S.: Education on a Shoestring: Creating an Online Information Literacy Game. Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith, A.-L., Baker, L.: Getting a clue: creating student detectives and dragon slayers in your library. Ref. Serv. Rev. 39(4), 628–642 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choi, J., Bakken, S.: Web-based education for low-literate parents in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: development of a website and heuristic evaluation and usability testing. Int. J. Med. Informatics 79(8), 565–575 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Köffel, C., Haller, M.: Heuristics for the evaluation of tabletop games. In: Workshop at the 2008 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carmody, K.W.: Exploring serious game design heuristics: a delphi study (Doctor of Education). Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Federoff, M.A.: Heuristics and usability guidelines for the creation and evaluation of fun in video games (Master of Science). Indiana University (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ponnada, A., Kannan, A.: Evaluation of mobile games using playability heuristics. In: International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics, pp. 244–247. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shafie, A., Ahmad, W.F.W.: Design and heuristic evaluation of mathQuest: a role-playing game for numbers. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 8, 620–625 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yen, P.-Y., Bakken, S.: A comparison of usability evaluation methods: heuristic evaluation versus end-user think-aloud protocol-an example from a web-based communication tool for nurse scheduling. In: American Medical Informatics Association Symposium, pp. 714–718. PubMed, Bethesda (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tan, J.L., Goh, D.H.-L., Ang, R.P., Huan, V.S.: Participatory evaluation of an educational game for social skills acquisition. Comput. Educ. 64, 70–80 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Desurvire, H., Caplan, M., Toth, J. A.: Using heuristics to evaluate the playability of games. In: CHI Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1509–1512. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Korhonen, H., Paavilainen, J., Saarenpää, H.: Expert review method in game evaluations: comparison of two playability heuristic sets. In: 13th International MindTrek Conference: Everyday life in the Ubiquitous Era, pp. 74–81. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Febretti, A., Garzotto, F.: Usability, playability, and long-term engagement in computer games. In: CHI Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 4063–4068. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jegers, K.: Investigating the applicability of usability and playability heuristics for evaluation of pervasive games. In: Third International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services, pp. 656–661. IEEE, New York (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and InformationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations