What Computing Students Can Learnby Developing Their Own Serious Games

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.

[1]  Jesper Juul,et al.  A Clash between Game and Narrative , 2011 .

[2]  John Cook,et al.  Beyond formal learning: Informal community eLearning , 2004, Comput. Educ..

[3]  Kay Wilkie,et al.  Medical Studies to Literary Studies: Adapting Paradigms of Problem-Based Learning Process to New Disciplines , 2004 .

[4]  Jesper Juul,et al.  A Casual Revolution: Reinventing Video Games and Their Players , 2009 .

[5]  Martin Oliver,et al.  Learning Through Dialogue (LTD) - A toolkit to support the process of planning for effective use of dialogue in learning , 2002 .

[6]  S. Papert.  The children's machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer , 1993 .

[7]  G. Wells.  Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Socio-cultural Practice and Theory of Education , 1999 .

[8]  Allan Collins,et al.  Cognitive Apprenticeship and Instructional Technology , 1988 .

[9]  Loh Sau Cheong,et al.  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS' SELF EFFICACY AND THEIR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACHIEVEMENT , 2006 .

[10]  Diana Laurillard,et al.  Rethinking University Teaching 2nd Edition: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies , 2002 .

[11]  John R. Savery,et al.  Overview of Problem-Based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. , 2006 .

[12]  Y. Kafai.  Playing and Making Games for Learning , 2006, Games Cult..

[13]  M. Bal,et al.  Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative , 1988 .

[14]  A. Lalande.  Vocabulaire Technique Et Critique De LA Philosophie , 1972 .

[15]  J. Davenport,et al.  A Chronology and Analysis of the Andragogy Debate , 1985 .

[16]  J. Huizinga.  Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture , 1938 .

[17]  Jouni Smed,et al.  Three Approaches Towards Teaching Game Production , 2009 .

[18]  J. Piaget,et al.  The Origins of Intelligence in Children , 1971 .

[19]  Diana Laurillard,et al.  Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies. 2nd Edition , 1993 .

[20]  Marc Prensky,et al.  Digital game-based learning , 2000, CIE.

[21]  Susan Bull,et al.  A Pair of Student Models to Encourage Collaboration , 1997 .

[22]  M. Knowles.  The Modern practice of adult education : andragogy versus pedagogy / , 1970 .

[23]  Paul Brna,et al.  Mr. Collins: A collaboratively constructed, inspectable student model for intelligent computer assisted language learning , 1995 .

[24]  Irina Verenikina,et al.  Understanding Scaffolding and the ZPD in Educational Research , 2003 .

[25]  Brenda Cantwell Wilson,et al.  A Study of Factors Promoting Success in Computer Science Including Gender Differences , 2002, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[26]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

[27]  Tom Chatfield,et al.  Fun Inc.: Why Games Are the 21st Century's Most Serious Business , 2011 .

[28]  Brenda Laurel,et al.  Computers as theatre , 1991 .

[29]  Diana Laurillard,et al.  Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology , 1993 .

[30]  Marja Kankaanranta,et al.  Design and Use of Serious Games , 2008 .

[31]  Magy Seif El-Nasr,et al.  Learning through game modding , 2006, Comput. Entertain..

[32]  Joanna C. Dunlap,et al.  Rich environments for active learning: a definition , 1995 .

[33]  B. Zimmerman,et al.  Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. , 2000, Contemporary educational psychology.

[34]  John Seely Brown,et al.  An Investigation of Computer Coaching for Informal Learning Activities. , 1978 .

[35]  Jesse Schell,et al.  The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses , 2019 .

[36]  S. Engel.  Thought and Language , 1964 .

[37]  Bernard Perron,et al.  The Video Game Theory Reader 2 , 2003 .

[38]  Gregory D. Abowd,et al.  Human-computer interaction (2nd ed.) , 1998 .

[39]  E. Margolis.  The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education , 2001 .

[40]  Frans Mäyrä,et al.  An introduction to game studies , 2008 .

[41]  Marc Prensky,et al.  Don't bother me, Mom, I'm learning! , 2006 .

[42]  Dale H. Schunk,et al.  Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors , 1989 .

[43]  J. Biggs,et al.  Teaching For Quality Learning At University , 1999 .