Bridging the Gap Between User and Information: A Case Study of a Serious Game

978-1-4799-3374-7/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE

Bridging the Gap Between User and Information: A Case Study of a Serious Game

Joseph R. Fanfarelli

University of Central Florida [email protected]

Abstract - Serious games, or games created for purposes beyond entertainment, facilitate communication between educators and learners. By harnessing the lessons prescribed by research and commercial entertainment games, serious games can teach, provide feedback, and evaluate learning, all within a single system. However, development is complex and rife with pitfalls. This paper describes lessons learned from the design, development, and experimentation of a serious game, Medulla, which can be applied to other serious games to improve the development process. Suggestions address positioning of the learning content within the game world, modality of the content, the relationship between the game and the content, and how to cater to a learner-player audience. Index Terms - Educational games, feedback, learning, serious games

INTRODUCTION

Video games can be considered to be information management environments, and are well suited for study within technical communication [1], [2]. Complex communication is inherent in games, providing opportunities for communicators to acquire a deeper understanding of interface and interaction design [3]. Serious games, or games created for purposes beyond entertainment [4], are particularly interesting as they not only spawn motivation and engagement [5] through the use of technical communication, but are also useful tools to connect learners to instructional content. But, while many serious games have been successful in their roles, others have been ineffective [6]. This is concerning; game development is an expensive endeavor. If the game does not support learning, development becomes little more than an exercise in wasting resources. Learning games (the type of serious game that will be investigated in this paper) thrive or fail based on their ability to communicate knowledge and procedures. This transactional process occurs through the transfer of information (learning content) from the designers, through the system (game), to the users (players). To be

effective, this process must be well-designed. All games do teach something, and often teach large quantities of technical content and complex procedures in a very short time span—a player cannot be successful in a first person shooter game without understanding the interactions between movement, position, firing patterns, aiming, and accuracy, just as players will not be successful in Super Mario Bros. without understanding how and when the power-ups should be used, the capabilities and movement patterns of the enemies, or the sensitivity of the run and jump controls. But, not all games teach the intended content, a result of poor design. Specifically, communicating information is not enough; the communication must be designed well enough to transfer the desired information.

The goal of this paper is to make a series of design recommendations meant to inform future designers, stakeholders, and other technical and professional communicators on how to effectively deliver game-mediated technical content to a target audience (e.g., employee, learner, trainee, etc.). This goal will be facilitated by presenting lessons learned from developing, play testing, and experimenting using a computer game that teaches basic brain structure and function, Medulla [7].

AN INTRODUCTION TO MEDULLA

Medulla (Figure 1) is a two-dimensional side-scrolling platformer game that teaches the locations and primary functions of major brain areas to introductory psychology students. The game takes place in the world of Medulla, a planet plagued by the evil THOR’s attempts to dominate the citizenry and become supreme ruler by attacking the brains of the Medullan citizens. The player’s role is to cure these citizens while defeating THOR’s minions.

In an experiment that used a pretest-posttest design, Medulla was capable of significantly improving knowledge with a very large effect size [7]. But, learning gains are only a part of the story. Medulla’s development posed several challenges that needed to be overcome in order to create an effective and efficient game. The

Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE IPCC 145

solutions to these challenges are the primary topic of this paper, and will be described with reference to their roles in providing instruction and feedback, evaluating learning, and maintaining engagement.

FIGURE 1. MEDULLA GAMEPLAY. MEDULLA IS A 2D SIDESCROLLING PLATFORMER GAME.

METHODOLOGY

A combination of techniques was used to gain design insights. Play testing involved observing users as they played the game, and asking them questions about their experiences and interactions to better understand their play. Additionally, an interview was conducted after play sessions to delve deeper into player experiences and verbal responses during gameplay, without actually interrupting play. Pre and posttests were used before and after play to assess learning. Interviews and play testing were executed prior to experimentation, while observation and testing occurred both during and prior to experimentation. In many instances, participants freely offered their testimonies directly following experimentation. These testimonies are also assessed within this paper.

DELIVERING INSTRUCTION

Delivering instruction is possibly the most important process in a learning game. Without effective instruction, there is no need to evaluate learning or provide feedback. While important, this process of communicating the content to the user can be complex.

In Medulla, new content is delivered at the beginning of each level through the introduction of powers—abilities that can be used to cure issues with citizens’ brains. These powers are presented through text-based dialogue between the main character and non-playable characters (NPC), which communicates both the learning content (i.e., the new brain power and the part of the brain in which it is related), as well as fantasy-based narrative describing the game world, communication that is typical within entertainment games.

However typical, in Medulla, it introduced a barrier to the learning process. While some players were interested in the dialogue and spent their time reading through it, others saw it as an obstacle to gameplay and skipped through as quickly as they could, missing both the narrative and the learning content that was contained within. This may have happened because they knew they would be able to receive the information later, if they made a mistake (see Practice and Feedback section), and could thus skip without concern. However, this may also have happened because they didn’t realize that important information, useful to both learning and game success, was presented in this dialogue.

Signal Detection Theory (SDT) explains this phenomenon. SDT describes the interaction between two elements, signal and noise [8]. The signal is the element of interest – the thing that should be detected. The noise is everything else – the elements which literally or metaphorically surround the signal. If considered literally (as the foundational SDT experiments were carried out), one may be listening for the signal through the noise. If there is too much noise, the signal cannot be heard. If the signal is loud and the noise is slight, the signal is clearly recognized. In other words, there is a threshold. If the signal does not pass the threshold, the noise can compromise communication [9]. When applied to Medulla’s dialogues, the learning content is the signal, while the remaining text is the noise. For example the following text introduces the Cerebellum power. To advance dialogue, the player was required to press the spacebar. Each dash (-) indicates a new screen of dialogue. The bold portion is the signal, while the rest serves as noise:

-‐Hi friend! Welcome to Cerebellum! -‐We’re a little wobbly these days, but this was once the happiest place on Medulla! -‐Of course, our spirits aren’t down too much, but we do need some help! -‐I don’t think there’s a person who doesn’t know your name and the things you’ve accomplished. -‐You’re getting close to THOR THE DESTROYER’s territory. Just push a little further. -‐Before you go, take the Cerebellum power and help anybody who is having trouble with their balance. -‐Thanks friend!

To some players, this text may provide interesting or entertaining insights into the game world, but it is simply irrelevant noise to others who have no interest in the lore. In this instance, the signal makes up only a small percentage of the total message, and only appears after

146 Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE IPCC

several lines of noise. When rapidly skipping through the dialogue, the signal may become indistinguishable amongst the noise in which it is encapsulated.

One simple solution to this problem is to reduce the noise. Medulla’s dialogues contained too much text; the noise was too loud to hear the signal. But, how can a game do this and also cater to those who enjoy the narrative elements? Use multimodal communication. Audio, sprite changes, or animation can be used in conjunction with the text to deliver more information [10] while increasing the saliency of the learning content. For example, a game could play a sound and momentarily pause gameplay when important information is presented. Or it could deliver dialogue through audio instead of text, highlighting the learning content by placing text on screen in sync with the audio (Figure 2). This would make the learning content prominent without having to remove the narrative elements.

FIGURE 2. CONTENT DELIVERY REDESIGN CONCEPT. HIGHLIGHT IMPORTANT INFORMATION BY PRESENTING IT ON SCREEN WHILE AUDIO PLAYS THE DIALOGUE.

PRACTICE AND FEEDBACK

After delivering the learning content, Medulla provides opportunities for the user to practice the content so that it can be more efficiently stored to memory. Upon approaching an ill citizen in game, the player is presented with a text-based message describing the issue, and is required to click a part of a two-dimensional brain to use an appropriate power (Figure 3).

One message is programmed for each type of illness. For example, when approaching a citizen with an impaired motor cortex, Medulla presents the message “You! Please help! I can’t control my body!” Since the motor cortex is integral to voluntary muscle control, it is important that the player establishes a mental link between “control my body” and “motor cortex.”

FIGURE 3. CURING ILL CITIZENS. PLAYERS MUST CLICK THE BRAIN TO CHOOSE THE PART THAT IS MOST RELATED TO EACH ILLNESS.

But, during play testing, the researcher noticed that

users selected the correct answers very quickly ─ more quickly, it was perceived, than the user could have read the presented text. It was hypothesized that the user was associating the motor cortex with “You! Please help!,” the first few words in the dialogue, instead of “control my body,” the key phrase required to support learning. The results of a posttest used to assess learning showed that users were unable to correctly answer the questions related to brain parts and their functions. Users confirmed this hypothesis when directly questioned. Since it was faster and reliable to read the first few words of text, users did not bother reading the rest of the message. Users were connecting information that prioritized game success over that which prioritized learning success. A two-fold solution was implemented to remedy the issue.

First, the important learning content-based text was highlighted in red (Figure 4).

FIGURE 4. HIGHLIGHTING IMPORTANT CONTENT. THE BRAIN-RELATED TEXT IS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.

Second, players were restricted from making a response for a few seconds after the text was displayed. Combined, these solutions made the learning content more salient than its surrounding text and weakened the connection between reading speed and game success. The delay forced the user to wait to respond, providing free time to finish reading the sentence. Also, the delay was calibrated to minimize gameplay interruption while producing the intended effect. Posttests and interviews confirmed that this combination of fixes remedied the issue.

While practice is useful, practice without feedback is inefficient and may even be harmful [11], [12]. The user


must understand when errors are made and how to fix them. Further, players should clearly understand how well or poorly they are performing within the system, and should be provided with the information necessary to improve. If the user forgets or overlooks the initial presentation of information, they should be offered multiple opportunities to relearn the content [9]. The system is meant to teach. Those who decide they want to learn, even if that decision came later in the gaming session, should be supported.

Such feedback and support were implemented in Medulla. As each ill citizen is encountered, one of two things occurs. If the player uses the correct brain power to cure the citizen (i.e., answers correctly), she is rewarded with points toward her overall score, an increase to avatar health, a positive message (“That’s much better. Thank you!”), and a sprite change for the cured citizen (frowning to smiling). But, if the incorrect brain power is chosen, the player loses health (possibly resulting in death) and has one more chance to choose the correct answer. Upon choosing incorrectly a second time, a second point of health is lost (certainly resulting in death and having to restart from the last checkpoint) and a negative message is delivered (“You hear a voice in the distance ‘Step aside mortal. This is a simple [correct brain area] issue. I’ll take care of it this time, but this failure will not go unpunished’”).

The feedback is communicated through gameplay mechanics. Ignoring the learning content substantially impedes gameplay, while learning the content supports gameplay. It is clear when the player has made an error, and it is clear when they have succeeded. This information is communicated through text, graphics, and continuity of play. Gameplay with correct answers is smooth and continuous with only short stops to cure citizens. Gameplay with incorrect answers forces longer pauses and frequently sets the player back, forcing the player to replay the same level section a second time, delaying the presentation of new content. Not only does this communicate performance, but it also provides further incentive to learn the content—to improve the gaming experience.

The player is also provided with the information needed to improve. Without breaking the narrative, the correct answer is communicated through this mysterious distant voice. Then, if the player wants to have smooth, continuous gameplay, they can learn the content and more quickly cure the ill citizens.

EVALUATING LEARNING

While the gameplay is choppy with incorrect answers, persistence will eventually get the player near to the end of the game, but not quite to the finish. While continuous evaluation occurs throughout gameplay (i.e., through curing citizens), the endgame includes a final, extensive

evaluation. The end of Medulla incorporates a boss fight against THOR. THOR stands on a platform above four citizens who have pledged to help the player defeat him (Figure 5).

FIGURE 5. FINAL FIGHT AGAINST THOR. THE FINAL BOSS FIGHT SERVES AS A GRAND REVIEW OF THE CONTENT AS THE PLAYER RAPIDLY CURES CITIZENS.

They continuously shoot the platform, damaging it over time, to make THOR fall to the ground. However, every few seconds, THOR inflicts illness upon one of the citizens, forcing the citizen to stop shooting. The player cannot damage the platform. Thus, in order to defeat THOR, the player must continuously cure the citizens so that they will resume shooting. Curing must occur approximately 100 times before the platform is destroyed and the battle is finished, presenting a strong barrier to those who do not master the content.

This exercise serves as both a climax to the game and a grand review of the learning content. Without understanding the functions of each part of the brain, the player cannot cure the citizens and defeat THOR. Incorrect answers are met with the same consequences as in the rest of the game, with one exception—the illness is changed and the player must try again. This dissuades the player from clicking through a series of random answers to eventually find the correct one; it is inefficient. The player is required to communicate his mastery to the system in order to finish the game. In this manner, evaluation becomes tightly intertwined with gameplay, and the game becomes a sort of hidden assessment that informs the educator of the learner’s mastery, while preventing the player from advancing the game without demonstrating that mastery. Game completion signifies that the learner has received and understands the learning content.

MAINTAINING ENGAGEMENT

At this point, this paper has almost exclusively focused on the learning process. While improved learning is the primary objective of learning games, games are


meant to be fun. When a user is told he will be playing a game, he has particular expectations of the experience. The game must deliver upon those expectations if the user is to remain open to what the game has to deliver—open to receiving the information. After all, if communication is to be effective, it must adapt to its audience [13]. For this reason, simply looking like a game is insufficient; the system must also feel like a game.

In Medulla, the learning content is intertwined with the game content. Content is introduced within fantasy narrative. Practice occurs while curing citizens. Feedback is provided by NPCs and boons (points and health) or debuffs (losing health or dying). Merging these elements together may blur the boundaries of gameplay and classical learning, but the boundaries do still exist.

While melding the educational and engaging elements, it became important to ensure that substantial learning was occurring, but that it was not ruining the gameplay. To this end, ill citizens were originally spread evenly throughout the levels. This method of placement, it was thought, would maximize the breaks in between the gameplay-interrupting process of curing citizens. In theory, this sounded like the perfect solution. In practice, it provided insufficient lengths of time to enjoy the gameplay. There were simply too many interruptions. The time between each citizen was maximized, but it wasn’t long enough to forget about the repetitive curing sessions and focus on play. To counteract this, the number of citizens was gradually lessened in each level. But, when gameplay finally felt right, there were too few opportunities to practice the learning content.

It was here that front- and back-loading the practice opportunities was considered. Instead of placing them at equal distances, several were placed in the beginning of each level, several in the end, and a few were placed at equal distances throughout the middle (See Figure 6). This provided longer sprees of uninterrupted gameplay, improving the experience, along with a few unintended beneficial consequences.

Each level could fit more citizens than the original layout. As each citizen only takes approximately five seconds to cure, three more at the beginning and end only adds 15 seconds to each practice session, while adding six more opportunities for practice. Not only did this modification provide for more continuous gameplay, it also allowed for more practice.

The beginning of each level was a great place to review the content from previous levels. The beginning of each level always included two or three opportunities to use the newest brain power, but it was also the perfect time to have the player practice earlier content, to keep it fresh in mind.

FIGURE 6. FRONTLOADING PRACTICE OPPORTUNITIES. ILL CITIZENS WERE FRONT- AND BACKLOADED FOR MORE CONTINUOUS GAMEPLAY.

Learners could anticipate when they were going to practice. In the original model, there were several unexpected pauses to the gameplay that frequently provoked responses, similar to “ugh, not this again.” With the new setup, those instances were minimized. After completing a level, the player knew they were going to cure several citizens. After playing through the level, encountering a string of citizens signified that they had reached the end. In this way, they could better anticipate their roles as learners and prepare to fulfill those roles.

CONCLUSION

Creating Medulla was a learning process in itself. While communicating learning content seemed like a straightforward process, the video game proved itself to be a complex environment that required special considerations during the design of the communication process. Communication modality, frequency of delivery, amount and type of supplemental information, and visual design were all criteria that were capable of supporting or detracting from the learning process during game play, depending on the specific design.

Future communicators involved in game design should continue to explore these criteria, even as they uncover new criteria that are important to the design of effective communication within serious games. Those involved in development should keep the player’s motives in the forefront of their minds. Why are players going to play this game? What do they hope to achieve? How are they likely to try to achieve it within the game? Anticipating player goals and their needs as they attempt to achieve those goals will lend hints into where and how information should be presented within the virtual environment, thereby improving the communication process and increasing the effectiveness of the designed game.


REFERENCES

[1] C. Fabricatore. (2015). Learning and videogames: An unexploited synergy. [Online]. Available: http://www.learndev.org/dl/FabricatoreAECT2000.PDF [2] J. Mason, “Video games as technical communication ecology,” Tech. Commun. Quart., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 219-236, Jan. 2013. [3] D. Eyman, “Computer gaming and technical communication: an ecological framework,” Tech. Commun., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 242-250, Jan. 2008. [4] D. Charsky, “From edutainment to serious games: A change in the use of game characteristics,” Games and Culture, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 177-198, Feb. 2010. [5] T. M. Connolly, et al., “A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games,” Comput. & Educ., vol. 59, pp. 661-686, Mar. 2012. [6] C. Girard, et al., “Boundaries of narrative.” New Literary History, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-13, 2012. [7] J. R. Fanfarelli. “The effects of narrative and achievements on learning in a 2D platformer video game,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. Eng., Univ. of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 2014. [8] T. D. Wickens, Elementary Signal Detection Theory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2001.

[9] J. Doumont, “The three laws of professional communication.” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 291-296, Dec. 2002. [10] R. E. Mayer, “Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?” Educ. Psychologist, vol. 32, pp. 1-19, Jan. 1997. [11] S. E. Bonner and P. L. Walker, “The effects of instruction and experience on the acquisition of auditing knowledge,” The Accounting Review, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 157-178, Jan. 1994. [12] M. Srinivisan, et al., “Does feedback matter? Practice-based learning for medical students after a multi-institutional clinical performance examination,” Medical Educ., vol. 41, pp. 857-865, Sep. 2007. [13] P. V. Anderson, Technical Communication (5th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Wadsworth, 2003.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joseph Fanfarelli is a Visiting Professor at the University of Central Florida. His primary research interest involves integrating principles of psychology and game design in order to identify new strategies for more effectively implementing games and gamification techniques in education and training.


Documents

Bridging the Gap Between User and Information: A Case Study of a Serious Game