starting date oct 7, 2008 funded by microsoft research $3 million over 3 years 14 faculty at 7...

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