starting date oct 7, 2008 funded by microsoft research $3 million over 3 years 14 faculty at 7...
TRANSCRIPT
Starting date Oct 7, 2008
Funded by Microsoft Research
$3 Million over 3 years
14 faculty at 7 universities
Organizational Structure
Ken Perlin, Institute Director
Jan PlassInstitute Co-Director
Development Education
Organizational Structure
Ken Perlin, Institute Director
Jan PlassInstitute Co-Director
Participating researchers
M. Flanagan (Dartmouth)
M. Gauthier (NYU)
B. Homer (GC/CUNY)
K.Isbister (NYU-Poly)
C. Kinzer (Teachers College)
C. Macklin (Parsons)
K. Milne (NYU)
A. Phelps (RIT)
C. Skelton (NYU-Poly)
J. Wein (NYU-Poly)
Organizational Structure
Development Team
Ken Perlin,Director
Andy Phelps Karl Skelton
Joel Wein
Organizational Structure
Education Team
Jan Plass,director
Mary Flanagan Bruce Homer
Katherine Isbister Katherine MilneChunk Kinzer
Kaelan Doyle-Myerscough
All-around game expert
Mitch Resnick
(MIT) Scratch
Jaron Lanier
Virtual reality
Will Wright
(Maxis) SIMS, Spore, ...
Microsoft Representative
Organizational Structure
Scientific Advisory Board
Organizational Structure
External Institute Advisors
For specific projects where other expertise
is needed, additional researchers serve
in an advisory capacity to the Institute.
Research questions:
•Teacher Support
• Design Factors
•Successful
•Integration
•Lab versus
Authentic Setting
•Interaction of
•Factors
From design factors to learning outcomes:
Factual
Knowledge
Factual
Knowledge
Conceptual
Knowledge
Conceptual
Knowledge
Procedural
Knowledge
Procedural
Knowledge
Meta-cognitive
Knowledge
Meta-cognitive
Knowledge
Affective
Outcomes
Affective
Outcomes
?
From design factors to learning outcomes:
Educational Game
Design Principles
Educational Game
Design Principles
Factual
Knowledge
Factual
Knowledge
Conceptual
Knowledge
Conceptual
Knowledge
Procedural
Knowledge
Procedural
Knowledge
Meta-cognitive
Knowledge
Meta-cognitive
Knowledge
Curricular
Integration
Educational
Games
Educational
Games
Game-based Learning Approach
Affective
Outcomes
Affective
Outcomes
Research Plan
Game Design
Principles
Game Design
PrinciplesGame PrototypesGame Prototypes
Features of Effective
Educational Games
Features of Effective
Educational Games
Review Research
on Games
Review Research
on Games
Observation of
Game Play
Observation of
Game Play
Development
Team: Implement
Development
Team: Implement
Education Team:
Empirical Research
Education Team:
Empirical Research
Anatomy of a game:
1. Player’s understanding
2. Game mechanic - the rules of play
3. Aesthetic design - graphics, sound, music, …
4. Narrative Drive – the story that moves the game forward
5. Extrinsic rewards – points, ranking, …
6. Intrinsic rewards – improving skills
Travel along surface of “Maximal flow”
(Csíkszentmihályi):
• xx (yy)– zz
Wide-ranging exploration
Focused exploration
Design
Confirmation
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3
2008 2009 2011
PHASE 4
Game DesignEduc. Assessment
Years 4–10
Time Line
Our plan:
Design
Our plan:
• Software:
– Mini-games architecture (MGA)
– Individual mini-games (IMG)
– In-Game Journaling software (GJS)
– Post-Game analysis software tools to journal data (PGA)
• Dissemination and Outreach
• Organize seminars within existing conferences
• Invited workshops run at the Institute
• Public talks/events sponsored by the Institute
• Bring in high powered speakers
• Publications in both educational and C.S. journals
Our plan:
• Responsible PI: Ken Perlin
• Goals
― Analyze 25+ existing games, identify patterns for design principl
― Literature review
Our plan:
Responsible PI: Ken Perlin
Goals:
― Analyze 25+ existing games, identify patterns for design principles
― Literature review
Outcomes
– List of design principles candidates
– List of game candidates for Phase II
– Prototype of journaling tools
– Dissemination: Literature reviews, Empirical papers
Wide-ranging exploration Exploration of Existing Games (Months 1-8)
PHASE 1
Our plan:
Deliverables and Time LinePHASE I: Wide Ranging Exploration of
Existing Games (Months 1-8)• Tasks/Methods
– Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)
– Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)
– Observe game play in various settings, develop ‘fun maps,’ data analysis, reports of findings (Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Phelps, Plass, Skelton)
– Begin designing journaling tools (Skelton)
• Outcomes
– List of design principles candidates
– List of game candidates for Phase II
– Prototype of journaling tools
– Dissemination: Literature reviews, Empirical papers
Tasks/Methods
– Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)
– Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)
– Observe game play in various settings, develop ‘fun maps,’
data analysis, reports of findings
(Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Phelps, Plass, Skelton)
– Begin designing journaling tools (Skelton)
PHASE 1Wide-ranging
exploration Exploration of Existing Games (Months 1-9)
• Responsible PI: Ken Perlin
• Goals
― Analyze 25+ existing games, identify patterns for design principles
― Literature review
Our plan:
Responsible PI: Jan Plass
Goals:
–Deeper Analysis of 12-15 games (fewer games, more sessions); identify design principles
Outcomes
–Refined list of design principles candidates
–1-2 sample games
–Journaling tools
–Journal analysis tool prototype
–Dissemination: Empirical papers
PHASE 2
Focused Exploratory Research (Months 10–18)
Our plan:
Deliverables and Time LinePHASE I: Wide Ranging Exploration of
Existing Games (Months 1-8)• Tasks/Methods
– Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)
– Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)
– Observe game play in various settings, develop ‘fun maps,’ data analysis, reports of findings (Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Phelps, Plass, Skelton)
– Begin designing journaling tools (Skelton)
• Outcomes
– List of design principles candidates
– List of game candidates for Phase II
– Prototype of journaling tools
– Dissemination: Literature reviews, Empirical papers
Tasks/Methods
– Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)
– Review and approve research protocols and measures (Plass, Perlin)
– Build 1-2 mini-games incorporating design principles identified in Phase I (Perlin, Phelps)
• Test and refine journaling tools (Skelton)
• Design and Develop data analysis tools for journals (Skelton)
– Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)
• In-depth observation of game play in various settings,
(Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Plass, Skelton)
• Think-aloud protocols of targeted game comparisons (Isbister, Milne)
• Design Experiments (Flanagan, Kinzer)
• Lab-based evaluation of exploratory games built based on principles (Homer, Plass)
PHASE 2
Focused Exploratory Research (Months 10–18)
• Responsible PI: Ken Perlin
• Goals
― Analyze 25+ existing games, identify patterns for design principles
― Literature review
Our plan:
Responsible PI: Ken Perlin
Goals:
–Develop educational games based on design principles identified in Phases I and II
–Develop data analysis tools
Outcomes
–Usability-tested sample games
–Data analysis tools for game research
–Dissemination: Empirical papers, technical papers, methods papers
PHASE 3
Development and Evaluation of G4L (Months 19–27)
Our plan:
Deliverables and Time LinePHASE I: Wide Ranging Exploration of
Existing Games (Months 1-8)• Tasks/Methods
– Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)
– Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)
– Observe game play in various settings, develop ‘fun maps,’ data analysis, reports of findings (Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Phelps, Plass, Skelton)
– Begin designing journaling tools (Skelton)
• Outcomes
– List of design principles candidates
– List of game candidates for Phase II
– Prototype of journaling tools
– Dissemination: Literature reviews, Empirical papers
• Tasks/Methods
– Game Design and Instrumentation
• Build mini-games based on Perlin architecture, tools and prototype
(Feiner, Phelps, Flanagan, Gauthier)
• Implement journaling software from Plass/Perlin spec (Phelps, Skelton)
• Implement post-process journal-data analysis tool from Plass/Perlin spec (Phelps, Skelton)
– Usability Research, Think-aloud protocols, Analysis of user logs (Phelps, Isbister, Milne)
– Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)
• Design Experiments (continued from Phase II) (Flanagan, Kinzer)
• Lab-based study of small, exploratory games (continued from Phase II) (Homer, Plass)
PHASE 3
Development and Evaluation of G4L (Months 19–27)
• Responsible PI: Ken Perlin
• Goals
― Analyze 25+ existing games, identify patterns for design principles
― Literature review
Our plan:
Responsible PI: Jan Plass
Goals:
–Validation of design principles through evaluation of games
–Revisions to games and data analysis tools
Outcomes
–Validated Design Principles for Educational Games
–Series of Validated Educational Games
–Data Analysis Toolkit for Educational Game Research
–Dissemination: Empirical papers, technical papers, methods papers
PHASE 4
Confirmation (Months 28–36)
Our plan:
Deliverables and Time LinePHASE I: Wide Ranging Exploration of
Existing Games (Months 1-8)• Tasks/Methods
– Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)
– Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)
– Observe game play in various settings, develop ‘fun maps,’ data analysis, reports of findings (Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Phelps, Plass, Skelton)
– Begin designing journaling tools (Skelton)
• Outcomes
– List of design principles candidates
– List of game candidates for Phase II
– Prototype of journaling tools
– Dissemination: Literature reviews, Empirical papers
• Tasks/Methods
– Confirmation/Validation of effect of specific design factors identified in the exploratory phases
• Authentic Settings: Design Experiments (continued from Phase II) (Flanagan, Kinzer)
• In-situ & lab setting: (Quasi-) Experiments (60-80 participants) (Plass, Homer, Isbister)
– Revisions to Games (Perlin & Development Team)
– Revisions to Data analysis tools (Skelton & Development Team)
PHASE 4
Confirmation (Months 28–36)
Our plan:
What we will actually produce:
• Software:
– Mini-games architecture (MGA)
– Individual mini-games (IMG)
– InGame Journaling software (GJS)
– Post-Game analysis software tools for journal data (PGA)
• Dissemination and Outreach:
– Organize seminars within existing conferences
– Invited workshops run at the Institute
– Public talks/events sponsored by the Institute
– Publications in both educational and C.S. journals
http://g4li.nyu.edu
Rich Gold’s classification scheme
Learning programming as a game
Characters and engagement
Science, Playful Interface Research, and Learning
iBird
UnMousePad