1

Abstract— Native digital is a reality that occurs in childhood. Preschoolers are easier to access to digital devices such as

computers, tablets, and smart phones making children so used to gadgets. An application widely accessed by preschoolers is a

video game. The video games impact for children can lead to any drawbacks but also end up on benefits like video games to stimulate preschoolers' cognitive abilities in this study. Finding

out its usability, playability and educational content is the required assessment of experts in an eligible field. This study

aims to determine the expert's assessment on the usability, playability and educational content of video games "RhinoHero" in stimulating cognitive children. Expert judgment/review is a

method used in this research with expert game developers, psychologists, and teachers of early childhood. The outcomes

obtained are expert judgments on "RhinoHero" video games that are deliberately designed to stimulate the cognitive abilities of

preschoolers. These will be discussed in this paper.

Index Terms— video game, preschoolers, expert judgment.

I. INTRODUCTION

This video game study for preschoolers talked about the issue of early childhood development. Since this period is also referred to as golden period, window of opportunity, and critical period. Comprehensively and qualified guiding the child’s growth and development through stimulation activity, detection and early intervention for child’s growth and development should be conducted during this “critical period” [1].

The effect of game on a child is wide-ranging. The studies regarding of it have revealed several game effects toward a child’s development, particularly for preschoolers , such as, it can be used as study source and a stimulation for a child’s creativity [2]. Preschoolers generally l ike games not least video game. Recently, they were born as digital native. Gadget, such as smartphone, tablets, computer are familiar for them to access various and popular video games [3], [4].

It is therefore, guiding preschoolers with serious game that has benefit or positive impact for them becoming an obligation for the parties associated with preschoolers’ education [5]. This can be performed by providing some judgment from experts regarding the usability [6], playbility, and [7] an educational content of video game [8]. They are used as the expert judgment study foundation on “RhinoHero” video game designed to stimulate early

childhood/preschoolers [9]. The study result detail will be elaborated in this paper.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Video Game System Development

“RhinoHero” video game system development [9] has orientation on software development process by employing SDLC (Software Development Life Cycle) method with a modified Waterfall model [10]–[12]. The steps of a game system development are:

The need analysis; this process aims to obtain as what feature and how the child’s cognitive ability to be considered in designing a video game to stimulate children’s cognitive ability [13].

Game designing; video game designing is performed by creating storyboard while observing the children’s cognitive ability component.

Prototyping; this prototyping process is a game designing activity including 3 stages, namely concept stage, elaboration stage and tuning stage [14]. This is through adjustment process with learning system on early childhood/preschoolers such as three times repli cation processes adopted as the negative scoring system surrogate as well as Vygotsky (scalfolding) learning stages on game’s level [15]. The stage between prototyping and implementation is expert judgement validation.

Implementation; is the game application to be used as intervention tool for early childhood/preschoolers .

B. Expert Judgment/ Review for Video Game

“RhinoHero” video game system validation process is performed with expert judgement method involving psychologists, early childhood teachers and game programmers (as the experts) from the beginning of video game development. In this process, experts are requested to justify as how the playing process in a game, included the game properties util ization developed, is in accordance with their judgment expertise.

Psychologists will justify the game psychological

aspects toward early childhood/preschoolers development, and early childhood teachers will provide commentary and improvement to the playing process in a game in order to match with the early childhood/preschoolers ’ curriculum and learning; whilst game programmers will provide input in terms of technique in its playing process. This has benefit in which

Expert Judgment on Preschoolers’ Cognitive Game Prototype

[1][2] Endah Sudarmilah, [3]Umi Fadlilah [2]Adhi Susanto, [2]Ridi Ferdiana, [4]Neila Ramdhani, [2]Paulus

Insap Santosa [1]Informatics Department, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Surakarta, Indonesia ,

[2]Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia,

[3]Electrical Engineering Department, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Surakarta, Indonesia, [4] Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

International Journal of Pure and Applied MathematicsVolume 118 No. 20 2018, 539-544ISSN: 1314-3395 (on-line version)url: http://www.ijpam.euSpecial Issue ijpam.eu

539

2

it will posses more positive effect on the study and more supportive on the earlier study devel opment [16].

The expert choosing also needs validation from the experts themselves. This is performed by choosing the certified experts in their own field, namely psychologists, early childhood teachers and the game developers who have experience as practitioners. The suggestion obtained from psychologists, early childhood teachers, and game developers in the expert judgment process will become the improvement materials in a game design process that will be used in the intervention.

III. METHODOLOGY

The method used in this study is by employing Expert judgement/review method to find out the judgment from the experts regarding the usability, playbi lity and the educational content of “RhinoHero” video game (already designed) in stimulating preschoolers’ cognitive [9]. Experts involved in this study are the ones who become the stake holder in the game design to stimulate the preschoolers’ cognitive. They are: game developers, psychologists and preschoolers’ teachers.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This study began with game prototyping up to system testing using black box method. Based on the study plan, the next step was system validation by employing expert judgment method or often referred to as expert review [17], [18]. Expert judgment/review was the data collection method involving experts in their respective expertise to justify a game that had been designed; in this case, it wa s “RhinoHero”.

Game validation was performed to asses a game in terms of its system (game usability and game playability) by 9 game developers, while 3 psychologists and 3 preschoolers’ teacher assessed the game from its educational content.

The way to interpret this expert judgment results was by processing rating scale data by finding out the rating scale mean obtained from the experts. This mean was then categorized based on the preliminary rating scale. This was conducted because the data obtained from the experts didn’t fulfi l l the normal distribution pri nciple; however, the number of experts providing judgment in this study was enough in clinical psychology single-case [19], [20].

The value of game usability and game ability obtained from the game developer assessment was provided by applying Korhonen’s game assessment standard using user interface heuristic evaluation principle [21]–[23].

The experts chosen to asses this already designed game provided input on the “Rhino Hero” game judgment, whether there was available or not the cognitive concept statement in rating scale item columns and how intensive this game was used by giving number 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. Number 1 to 5 within rating scale represented that cognitive concept level applied/util ized in “Rhino Hero” game were as follow; 1 (very low), 2 (low), 3 (medium), 4 (high) and 5 (very high).

A. Video Game Usability

“Rhino Hero” game usability by expert had high enough

mean usability by 4.2 in which it was between the scaling rate 4 (high) and 5 (very high). Thirteen usability assessments that each of them was assessed could be played by user (preschoolers). All of them were above scale 4, except on character status component (figure) that only obtained the value of 3.3 (ID GU4). Whilst the highest value on game scenario item (ID GU1b) and navigation/game clue (ID GU10) were 4.56. The items of this usability assessment consisted of audio visual, background, control game, game system feedback, and navigation in which their assessment could be seen in detail in Figure 1 and Table I.

B. Video Game Playability

“RhinoHero” playability game assessment was also based on Korhonen’s playability game assessment criteria . Rating scale result obtained was generally almost similar to its usability value of 4.25 that was between the assessment range of 4 (high) and 5 (very high). Fourteen game playability criteria, with playability value scale in every component were similar to or above 4. The highest rating scale was in the character suitable to children (ID GP4) and in the game variation (ID GP10), 4.56. The item of level information (ID GP2), game representation in the real world (ID GP12) and the character/figure role (ID GP1) was assessed with the lowest value of 3.89; however, it was stil l considered as good since its va lue was above 3 (medium/average) and close to rating scale 4 (high). This was due to the game figure/character chosen and designed that is anthropomorphic in nature in which it was accordance with the preschoolers’ imagination.

Fig. 1 Game Usabi l ty Results .

International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

540

3

These game playability items also assessed the clarity of system, purpose, reward as well as the task/challenge within the game itself. Detail of game playability assessment component and its result could be seen in Figure 2 and Table II.

C. Educational Content

Educational content assessed in this “Rhino Hero” game was confirmatory in nature since the educational content assessed was the input/recommendation from experts toward the need analysis when designing the game concept. This input/recommendation was indeed mapped into every game component [24]; thus, it simplified its game designing process and assessment (confirmatory). Every game component had its own item and detail from different educational content criteria. This depended on expert’s input/recommendation as designing game concept at the beginning of study. The result of assessment scale presented in Figure 3 was the mean result of assessment scale in every game component consisted of several aforementioned criteria. Total number of criteria i tems were 28 games content assessment scale criteria with most item was on “story l ine” game component (see Table III). It showed that expert stated that educational content had been available on every game component in which the assessment scale was similar to or higher than 3. The highest value scale of educational game was on

TABLE I DETAIL CRITERIA OF GAME USABILITY

No ID Usabi l i ty Deta i l cri teria

1 GU1a Graphic/Visual and audio (voice) game had supported the chi ld game’s story l ine/scenario and i t could comfort them as they were involved/played the game.

2 GU1b Game scenario had been able to attract chi ldren in playing game.

3 GU2 Game background layouts had been informative and guide d chi ldren as the players .

4 GU3 Game interface (background, mouse, touch screen or voice) had been displayed/uti l i zed in accordance with i ts function.

5 GU4 Game character s tatus (every level ) could be found out by player.

6 GU5 The terms (language ) used could be understood by a chi ld.

7 GU6 Game’s clue/navigation had been cons is tent; fol lowing a chi ld’s thinking logics and s imple game.

8 GU7 Game control button (touch screen and mouse) faci l i tated chi ldren in playing the game.

9 GU8 The buttons in a game we re s impl i fied and comfortable for chi ldren to use in playing.

10 GU9 Game had a l ready given feedback to chi ldren (players ) i f the answer was right/wrong.

11 GU10 Game provided navigation i f i t performed the right/wrong s tep.

12 GU11 The s teps in a game are accordance with the chi ldren level (do not give burden/make s tress ).

13 GU12 Game had provided a clear and coherent tutoria l for chi ldren as players .

TABLE I I DETAIL CRITERIA OF GAME PLAYABILITY

No ID Playabi l i ty Deta i l cri teria

1 GP1 The purpose of playing a game (overa l l or every level ) had been obvious for chi ldren.

2 GP2 Progress (level ) information had been avai lable within a game (the level transfer i s clearly seen).

3 GP3 Every time winning a game, there was a nice and various reward (prize).

4 GP4 Game player (character) could make chi ldren acting as a decis ion maker in playing.

5 GP5 The chal lenges and game strategies had been sui table to/match with the preschoolers ’ abi l i ty/ski l l ; thus , they would not be eas i ly bored.

6 GP6 Game could attract chi ldren/players to have a des i re in playing again.

7 GP7 Al l game parts had meaning and interesting for chi ldren/player.

8 GP8 The tasks given were not boring for chi ldren/players .

9 GP9 Game a l lowed chi ldren to express as i f they were rea l ly involved in that game.

10 GP10 Game provided many kind of information in how to play.

11 GP11 Chi ldren/players should feel that they were able to reach the goal and the ongoing game.

12 GP12 The incidents in a game world described (resembled) the rea l world (what was performed in the game resembled the action in the rea l world).

13 GP13 Game had severa l characters/players having their own roles .

14 GP14 Game provided reward in every level that could be uti l i zed in the next level .

Fig. 2 Game Playabi l i ty Results .

International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

541

4

background component (ID EC6) 4.5 and the lowest component was on audio/music (ID EC3) with assessment scale as 3. This was interpreted that the game background had been sufficient and for audio/music was assessed as medium. This was due to the certain part of audio/music had remained set on higher volume than its audio navigation game.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the discussion and explanation, it can be concluded that Expert assessed that “Rhino Hero” game had high enough mean usability value (between 4 [high] and 5 [very high]), as well as the mean value of its playability. While Educational Content component showed that expert stated that educational content had been available in every game component in which its assessment scale was similar to or above 3 (average/medium) .

Fig. 3 Educational Content Results .

TABLE I I I DETAIL CRITERIA OF EDUCATIONAL CONTENT IN GAME COMPONENTS

No Game

Components ID Deta i l Cri teria

1 Character EC1a There was major figure, peer friends and acting on their own roles . EC1b Obvious figure emotion express ion . EC1c There were di fferent age figures (adult, teenager, etc.)

2 Graphic EC2 Interesting colors for chi ldren (cheerful , soft, natura l ). 3 Audio/Mus ic EC3 Interesting & cheerful mus ic but not noisy; thus , improving happiness . Ei ther

back sound or reward animation back sound. 4 Storyl ine

EC4a Game used aggress ive concept that was understandable and safe for

chi ldren's age (aggress ive but not destructive and not-negative) EC4b Logica l s toryl ine, such as on the l i fe context of chi ldren world (for example:

playing with friends in a park but not on the s treet) . EC4c Rule concept introduction/appl ication for chi ldren in that setting. For

example: s tea l ing i s not good. EC4d There were severa l time variations and teaching time di fference (noon,

afternoon, night, etc.) EC4e There was chronologica l s tory to create the s tory concept on chi ldren. EC4f There was imagination that could s timulate i t (magic) to chi ldren in order to

make them attracted more to the game; however, i t needed some l imitation in order that the imagination would not emerge fear/anxiety or s timulated negative imagination.

EC4g There were constructing elements/aspects within a game, example: assembl ing objects , assembl ing geometrica l objects , des igning block, completing picture, organizing a lego to make a particular construction/shape.

5 Game Scenario

EC5a The exis tence of understandable and easy to fol low clues (concrete i l lustration and ora l as wel l as wri tten explanation in every activi ty) .

EC5b The exis tence of s imple words and languages ; however, they were easy to understand and adding vocabularies .

EC5c There was word repeti tion usage, for example: level , clear, score, reward, number/va lue obta ined.

EC5d The incidence repeti tion, chi ldren learned from examples/movements/events time after time. Chi ldren learned to characterize, imitate, and adding or they learned through examples and then produced/created their own behavior.

EC5e There was opportunity to repeat i f the fa i lure occurred, thus i t motivated chi ldren to learn.

EC5f There were chal lenges as problem to be solved. 6 Background

EC6a Applying the typica l and s imple environment to chi ldren. For example:

park/open nature. EC6b Introducing many kinds of animals , not only one.

7 Level and Chal lenge

EC7a There was di fferent chal lenge, with the di fficu l ty levels s tarted from the low to high in consecutive s tages ; therefore, i t didn't have monotonous effect/boring.

EC7b The chi ldren were asked to predict the precise time in applying s trategies (for example: s imultaneous ly us ing the superiori ty posses sed by the character).

International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

542

5

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work was supported by Research, Technology and Directorate General of Higher Education (RISTEKDIKTI) of Indonesia, Informatics Department and Electrical Engineering of Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta (UMS).

REFERENCES

[1] I . S. Baron and K. A. Leonberger, “Assessment of Intel l igence in the Preschool Period,” Neuropsychol. Rev., vol . 22, no. 4, pp. 334–344, Dec. 2012.

[2] E. B. Hurlock, Child Development, 6th ed. New York: Mc. Graw Hi l l , Inc., 1978.

[3] S. Ryong Hong and I. Young Shin, “The Appl ication of Multimedia and Wireless Technology in Education,” Indian J. Sci. Technol., vol . 8, no. 20, Aug. 2015.

[4] E. W. Lee, J. G. Shon, and Y. Kim, “Des ign and Implementation of Engl i sh Learning Appl ication for Early Chi ldhood,” Indian J. Sci. Technol., vol . 8, no. S7, p. 679, Apr. 2015.

[5] E. Sudarmi lah, A. Susanto, R. Ferdiana, and N. Ramdhani , “Popular games, can any concept of cognitive preschoolers be in i t?,” in 2015 2nd International Conference on Information Technology, Computer, and Electrical Engineering (ICITACEE) , 2015, pp. 31–35.

[6] M. Masood and M. Thigambaram, “The Usabi l i ty of Mobi le Appl ications for Pre -schoolers ,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol . 197, pp. 1818–1826, Jul . 2015.

[7] H. Korhonen, Evaluating Playability of Mobile Games with the Expert Review Method. School of Information Sciences Univers i ty of Tampere, 2016.

[8] J. Nunes Marciano, L. Cunha de Miranda, and E. Esteves Cunha de Miranda, “Evaluating Multiple Aspects of Educational Computer Games: Li terature Review and Case Study,” Int. J. Comput. Games Technol., vol . 2014, pp. 1–12, 2014.

[9] E. Sudarmi lah, A. Susanto, R. Ferdiana, and N. Ramdhani , “Preschoolers ’ cognitive game prototype,” in 2017 International Conference on Applied System Innovation (ICASI), 2017, pp. 1875–1878.

[10] A.A.Puntambekar, Software Engineering. Technica l Publ ications , 2009.

[11] P. Ragunath, S. Velmourougan, P. Davachelvan, S.

Kayalvizhi , and R. Ravimohan, “Evolving a new model (SDLC Model -2010) for software development l i fe cycle (SDLC),” Int. J. Comput. Sci. Netw. Secur., vol . 10, no. 1, pp. 112–119, 2010.

[12] A. M. Langer, Guide to Software Development: Designing and Managing the Life Cycle. Springer, 2012.

[13] K. McCarrick and X. Li , “Buried Treasure : The Impact of Computer Use on Young Chi ldren’s Socia l , Cognitive, Language Development and Motivation,” AACE J., vol . 15, no. 1, pp. 73–95, 2007.

[14] E. Adams, Fundamentals of Game Design. Berkeley, CA, USA: New Riders , 2013.

[15] J. . Santrock and S. R. Yussen, Child Development. Dubuque, IA, Wm, C.Brown., 1992.

[16] I . Mayer, “Towards a Comprehens ive Methodology for the Research and Evaluation of Serious Games,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol . 15, pp. 233–247, 2012.

[17] H. Korhonen, “Comparison of playte sting and expert review methods in mobi le game evaluation,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Fun and Games - Fun and Games ’10, 2010, pp. 18–27.

[18] V. Nacher, F. Garcia -Sanjuan, and J. Jaen, “Interactive technologies for preschool game-based instruction: Experiences and future chal lenges ,” Entertain. Comput., vol . 17, pp. 19–29, 2016.

[19] W. R. Shadish, T. D. Cook, and D. T. Campbel l , Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Miffl in, 2002.

[20] L. Cohen, L. Manion, and K. Morrison, Research Methods in Education, Sixth. New York, NY, USA: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2007.

[21] D. Pinel le, N. Wong, and T. Stach, “Heuris tic Evaluation for Games: Usabi l i ty Principles for Video Game Des ign,” in CHI 2008 Procceedings Game Zone, 2008, pp. 1453–1462.

[22] S. Papaloukas , K. Patriarcheas , and M. Xenos , “Usabi l i ty Assessment Heuris tics in New Genre Videogames,” in 2009 13th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, 2009, pp. 202–206.

[23] H. Desurvire and M. S. El -Nasr, “Methods for Game User Research: Studying Player Behavior to Enhance Game Des ign,” IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., vol . 33, no. 4, pp. 82–87, Jul . 2013.

[24] E. Sudarmi lah, A. Susanto, R. Ferdiana, and N. Ramdhani , “Developing a game for presch oolers : What character, emotion and reward wi l l tend to hack preschoolers?,” 2015, pp. 89–92.

International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

543

544