World Applied Programming, Vol (2), Issue (9), September 2012.

421-424
ISSN: 2222-2510
2012 WAP journal. www.waprogramming.com

Digital Game-Based Learning Plan

with Psychological Features
Ronak Karimi

Masoud Nosrati *

Eslamabad-E-Gharb branch,
Islamic Azad University,
Eslamabad-E-Gharb, Iran
rk_respina_67@yahoo.com

Eslamabad-E-Gharb branch,
Islamic Azad University,
Eslamabad-E-Gharb, Iran
minibigs_m@yahoo.co.uk

Abstract: This study aims the Digital Game-Based Learning. So, basic principles are talked and the
concerning issues like motivation of Game based learning are illustrated, which insists on the facts: challenge,
goals and instructional games. Then, the steps of educational game design are investigated. It emphasizes on
topics like: Determine Pedagogical Approach (how you believe learning takes place), situate the Task in a
Model World, and elaborate the Details, Incorporate Underlying Pedagogical Support, Map Learning
Activities to Interface Actions, Map Learning Concepts to Interface Objects.
Key word: Game-Based Learning, Game-Based Plan, Psychological Digital Game-Based Design
I.

INTRODUCTION

Game-based learning (GBL) refers to different kinds of software applications that use games for learning or
educational purposes. Also termed serious games, these games applications can include fully immersive
environments (or metaverses), such as Second Life where 3D graphics capabilities are providing opportunities for
learners to take on virtual presence in virtual worlds. Equally, simpler games such as quiz games akin to e-assessment
tools as embedded in higher and further education (HE and FE) VLEs are being used, and web-based or Flash
animations are gaining popularity with tutors and learners, particularly for improving English and Maths or language
learning skills. The use of leisure games in learning is also notable and games such as Brain Trainer promote a blurring
between formal and informal learning, which may have benefits for supporting learning in HE and FE contexts [1].
II.

MOTIVATION TO PLAY AND FLOW EXPERIENCE

Game-based learning can be seen from two different perspectives -the learning and the gaming perspective - and
consequently, the motivation to use an educational game depends on the motivation to play the game and/or on the
motivation to learn about the related domain. Since the motivation to play is the crucial advantage of game-based
learning over traditional instruction, it is only natural that researchers frequently focus on this motivational component
as a key aspect of instructional games. Motivation to play is strongly related to the motivation grounded in activityspecific incentives, for which the concept of flow experience [2] is a prominent ambassador. The term flow
experience refers to a state of full immersion in an activity, which typically goes along with a loss of sense of time
and no reflection on carrying out the action. The appearance of this optimal experience is likely while interacting
with a computer and perceived very positively [3]. Further the antecedents of a flow experience allow the deduction of
some potentially useful game design principles [3][4], which enhance a focused attention and immersion of the player:
The challenge of the game should fit the ability of the player; otherwise she would experience either anxiety
or boredom instead of a flow. By this means the player has the feeling of controlling the situation.
The goals to be achieved should be clear at any point of the game, so that the player always knows what to do
without exerted thinking about it. Also the provided feedback should be clear, appropriate, and immediate.
The instructional game should be playful and composed of an action procedure, which is experienced as
fluent. A good usability avoids that the player spends cognitive resources for inappropriate actions.
The concept of flow experience seems to be very fruitful in game-based learning and attempts to create flow-based
educational games [5] were quite successful in inducing a flow experience and enhancing learning. However, some
researchers in the field of elearning did not find evidence for a relation between the appearance of a flow experience
and the learning effect [6], so that a clear relationship probably cannot be stated [7].

421

Ronak Karimi et al., World Applied Programming, Vol (2), No (9), September 2012.

Beyond that, it is questionable if some characteristics of educational games, which differentiate them from
conventional games for entertainment, impede the appearance of a flow experience (or generally immersion)
dramatically. Castell and Jenson [8] state that education has not been able to realize the immersive possibilities of
new digital resources... and point out two weaknesses of existing educational games. The authors claim the necessity
to connect game-play elements with the learning content (compared to a series of tasks integrated loosely in a game
narrative, but with no direct connection), and to provide the players with the possibility for boundless navigation and
movement (instead of a rigid structures of learning elements) [9].
III.

STEPS OF EDUCATIONAL-GAME DESIGN

Cordova et al. [10] have shown that enhanced learning which is fun can be more effective. Using some simple
educational tasks, they demonstrated that learning embedded in a motivating setting improved learning outcomes and
that engagement can facilitate learning. Learning occurs when the learner is mentally involved and actively interacts
within the game, where a balance of challenge and possible courses of action is provided. To support learning we have
to create appropriate mapping of education and engagement.
To create a successful game-based learning opportunity, the following steps of game design, elements of learning and
engagement outlined below should be taken into consideration:

Determine Pedagogical Approach (how you believe learning takes place)

Situate the Task in a Model World
Elaborate the Details
Incorporate Underlying Pedagogical Support
Map Learning Activities to Interface Actions
Map Learning Concepts to Interface Objects

When designing an example of an educational game we have to reflect upon didactical approach and related topics.
We have to create the situation asking What do we want that learners learn? Before defining the activities we should
reconsider the saying failure opens the gate to learning and we should try to provide an answer to the question
Why?. There are many interactive learning techniques that have already been used in game based learning.
According to [11], one of those techniques is learning from mistakes, where failure is considered a point where user
gets some feedback. In game based learning making a mistake - or trial and error - is a primary way to learn and is
considered the motivation for players to keep on trying. In games failure consequence i.e. feedback is provided in the
form of action (as opposed to feedback in the form of the text explanation that is provided in instructional material).
We then have to define clear goals for the activities, keeping in mind that challenge should match the skill level higher
than mean. Students should also be able to asses their own activities to see how they are doing and to be able to
evaluate their decisions / actions. There must be a close link between action and feedback. With the unexpected and
repeated introduction of novel events students should be additionally motivated to play the games i.e. interact with the
learning material. Successful learning opportunities could be created when following the constructivist learning theory,
where constructivist means an exploratory approach to learning. Major characteristics of the constructivist approach
are, among others, interaction, coping with problems, understanding of the whole, etc. From the constructivist point of
view learners are active participants in knowledge acquisition, and engaged in restructuring, manipulating, reinventing, and experimenting with knowledge to make it meaningful, organized, and permanent.
The constructivist method of design is different from the linear task-oriented method of an instructional system design
approach. Designers who use a constructivist method to create learning environments are less focused on a how-to or
process approach but emphasise elements that facilitate a learning process. Designers applying this method take into
account seven pedagogical goals: 1) to provide an experience with the knowledge-construction process, 2) to provide
experiences encouraging appreciation of multiple perspectives, 3) to embed learning in realistic and relevant contexts,
4) to encourage ownership in the learning process, 5) to embed learning in social experience, 6) to encourage the use
of multiple modes of representation, and 7) to encourage self-awareness of the knowledge construction process
[12][13].

422

Ronak Karimi et al., World Applied Programming, Vol (2), No (9), September 2012.

IV.

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Most researchers agree that an important role in current learning structures is played by collaborative learning,
which allows participants to exchange information as well as to produce ideas, simplify problems, and resolve the
tasks. In this model the teacher is the active partner, moderator and advisor of the educational process, not just a
repository of the information importing his or her own knowledge to a passive student as in traditional education.
This methodology called constructivism guides the design of the effective learning environments. Students bring
their prior skills and knowledge to the class community. The trainer structures learning situations in which each
learner can interact with other students to develop new knowledge and fashion their own needs and capacities
[14][15]. Knowledge is generated from experience with complex tasks rather than from isolated activities like learning
and practicing separately. Skills and knowledge are best acquired within the context. According to Vygotskys theory,
problem solving skills of tasks can be graded on:
(1) Those performed independently by a student;
(2) Those which can be performed with help from others;
(3) Those that cannot be performed even with help.
The second situation occurs in the classroom collaborative environment. So that it helps the students easily to transfer
learning from classroom to real life and back, or information from one subject to another. Therefore this method
requires that the trainer and students play nontraditional roles such as interaction and collaboration with each other
within the educational process. The classroom becomes a community of learning.
In online distance education Internet plays the role of the classroom. In her theory [16] proposed the design of a
collaborative e-learning process that includes a five-stage framework, which is helpful and useful for an e-moderator
that builds online courses. In the first stage an e-trainer designs (1) access and motivation of the participants. Online
socialization of the learners (2) is then reached. By using the results of these two steps the e-moderator organizes the
next processes: (3) the information exchange, then (4) knowledge construction and as a benefit - the development of
knowledge (5). An important note is that without successful processes in the first two stages there is no possibility for
successful development in the last stages [13].
V.

CONCLUSION

This study had a brief survey on designing game based plans for educational purposes. So, basic principles were
talked. Also some important issues like motivation of Game based learning were illustrated, which insists on the facts:
challenge, goals and instructional games. Then, the steps of educational game design are investigated. Collaborative
Learning was talked at the end.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

Game-based Learning Article, JISC, May 2007. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/gamingreportbp.pdf

M. Csikszentmihalyi, Flow - the psychology of optimal experience, Klett-Cotta Stuttgart, 1992.
K. Kiili, Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model, Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005), 13-24.
F. Rheinberg, Motivation, Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart, 2006.
K. Kiili, Content creation challenges and flow experience in educational games: The IT-Emperor case, Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005),
183-198.
[6] U. Konradt, R. Filip & S. Hoffmann, Flow experience and positive affect during hypermedia learning, British Journal of Educational
Technology 34 (2003), 309-327.
[7] U. Schiefele & F. Rheinberg, Motivation and knowledge acquisition: Searching for mediating processes, In M. L. Maehr & P. P. Pintrich
(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 251-301), JAI Press, Greenwich CT, 1997.
[8] S. De Castell & J. Jenson, Serious play, Journal of Curriculum Studies 35 (2003), 649-665.
[9] Elke Mattheiss, Michael Kickmeier-Rust, Christina Steiner and Dietrich Albert. Motivation in Game-Based Learning: Its More than Flow. In
Schwill, A., & Apostolopous, N. Eds., Lernen im Digitalen Zeitalter. 2009, pp. 77-84
[10] Cordova, D.I. & Lepper, M.R. Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and
choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1996, 88, 715-730
[11] Pivec, M.: Knowledge Transfer in On-line Learning Environments; Knowledge Mediation and Knowledge Glows for Authoring, Teaching and
Learning. Doctoral dissertation at the TU Graz, 2000.
[12] Robinson, P.: Strategies for Designing Instruction in Web-based Computer Conferencing Environments, Available at:
http://www.inform.umd.edu/About/.IIT/probinso/epiphany/strategies.html

423

Ronak Karimi et al., World Applied Programming, Vol (2), No (9), September 2012.

[13] Maja Pivec, Olga Dziabenko, Irmgard Schinnerl. Aspects of Game- Based Learning, Proceedings of I-KNOW 03 Graz, Austria, July 2-4,
2003
[14] Vygotsky, L.: Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, 1978.
[15] Vygotsky,L.S. Thought and Language. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986
[16] Salmon, G. (2002) E-tivities: the key to active online learning, Kogan page, London. Suits, B. American Philosophy of Science, XXXIV, 148156, 1967

424