All, A., Van Looy, J., Núñez Castellar, E. (2013). An evaluation of the added value of co-design...

International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 1-17, January-March 2013 1

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Keywords: Adolescents,Co-Design,ContentCreation,Game-BasedLearning,TrafficSafety

INTRODUCTION

Today’s adolescents are sometimes referred to as Digital Natives (Prensky, 2001) or the Net Generation (Sanders & Morrison, 2007). These concepts refer to the fact that adolescents that are growing up now have been immersed in

information and communication technologies for most of their lives. Hence, they dispose of sophisticated technical skills and are ‘fluent in the digital language of computers, video games and internet’ (Prensky, 2005, p.8). The Digital Natives are therefore believed to have other preferences when it comes to ‘learning’: they learn at a higher speed, are used to processing visual and dynamic information and learning

An Evaluation of the Added Value of Co-Design in the

Development of an Educational Game for Road Safety

AnissaAll,DepartmentofCommunicationSciences,iMinds-MICT-GhentUniversity,Ghent,Belgium

JanVanLooy,DepartmentofCommunicationSciences,iMinds-MICT-GhentUniversity,Ghent,Belgium

ElenaPatriciaNuñezCastellar,DepartmentofCommunicationSciences,iMinds-MICT-GhentUniversity,Ghent,Belgium

ABSTRACTThisstudyexplorestheaddedvalueofco-designinadditiontootherinnovationresearchmethodsinthepro-cessofdevelopingaseriousgamedesigndocumentforaroadsafetygame.Thesessionsaimedatexploring4aspectsofalocation-basedgameexperience:themes,gamemechanics,mobilephoneapplicationsandlocationsformini-games.Intotal,72adolescentsbetween15and18yearsparticipatedinfiveco-designsessionsleadbyaresearcherandaprofessionalgamedesigner.Thesessionsprovidedusefulinputregardingtheaspectstheauthorswishedtoexplore.Thesessionswereespeciallyusefulingatheringinputonscoringsystems,waystogiveinstructionsaboutnexttasksandorganizinglevelsystems.Insum,theirstudyindicatesthatco-designcanbeasourceofadditionalideasontopofotherresearchmethodssuchasstateoftheartanalysisandexpertconsultationandthusleadtomoreeffectiveinteractivecontentcreation.

DOI: 10.4018/ijgbl.2013010101

2 International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 1-17, January-March 2013


through game-based activities. Traditional teaching methods are therefore considered in-sufficient or even inappropriate for them and as a consequence connecting with the adolescent culture might require the integration of more innovative elements (Prensky, 2001). Several scholars have however formulated critiques on this digital native concept, pleating for a more nuanced conceptualization and ‘..go beyondsimpledichotomiesevidentinthedigitalna-tivesdebate todevelopamoresophisticatedunderstandingofourstudents’experiencesoftechnology’ (Bennett & Maton, 2010, p. 321). According to these scholars, this debate created an academic moral panic without representative empirical evidence. A study of Selwyn (2009) concluded that the younger generation is more varied yet less spectacular than is often suggest-ed. Another critique on the digital native debate is the fact that this is a conceptualization solely based on generation, while a study of Helsper and Enyon (2009) has shown that not only generation but gender, education, experience and breadth of use are other determining factors in preferences, skills and use of technologies.

However, we cannot go past the fact that gaming is a popular activity among adolescents. According to a recent study, more than 70% of adolescents between 16 and 19 years old in the UK, Spain, France and Belgium can be consid-ered as ‘Gamers’ (having played a game in the last 6 months) (GameVision Europe, 2010). A recent study conducted in Flanders (Belgium) showed that adolescents between 12 and 14 are also more likely to play a game on mobile devices such as mobile game consoles (69%) and mobile phones (53%) than older teenagers (Graffiti Jeugddienst, Jeugdwerknet & IBBT-MICT, 2010).

SERIOUS GAMES DESIGN

From the perspective of these adolescents gam-ing is primarily seen as entertainment. However, several authors agree that a lot of games are intrinsically based on learning principles (Van Eck, 2006). To make progress in the game one

needs to rely on knowledge gathered or skills learned in earlier stages of the game (Kelly et al., 2007). Games challenge players to solve problems and offer them the opportunity to learn by doing, letting them experiment, fail and try again until they succeed while they constantly receive feedback on their progress. This claim is associated with the constructivist or experiential perspective on learning. Several game research-ers and theorists have used experiential learning theory to understand game-based learning. As people play they encounter obstacles, need to solve problems and gain understanding of the, at times highly complex, game system to make progress. Authors such as Garris, Ahlers and Driskell (2002) and Ulrich (1997) refer to the game cycle of continuously adjusting action to feedback given during game play and to the combination of game play and reflection as ways in which the learning process takes place.

The interactive virtual setting responds to the decisions of the player and creates the possibility to adapt to the players’ abilities, maintaining a balance between challenge in the game and the player’s skills. According to Michel and Chen (2006) one of the important aspects of serious games is that they should re-spond more to the conscious decisions made by players than to chance and thus create a higher level of interactivity. Therefore, it is highly recommended to integrate adaptive mechanisms when designing a serious game. Adaptivity refers to the ability of a system to create a per-sonalized learning experience depending on the skills, knowledge and preference of the players (Kickmeier-Rust et al., 2006). This is realized by monitoring the learner’s progress and by adding adaptive mechanisms that “…allowthelearningenvironmentstocatertostudentswithdifferent learningstyles,different levelsofinitialknowledgeanddifferentexpectationsandobjectives.” (Mereno-Ger et al., 2008, p.5). Adaptive game technology can for example be used to moderate the challenge levels depend-ing on the initial knowledge/skill level of the player, help players avoid getting stuck or adapt gameplay more to a player’s preference



or taste (Charles et al., 2005). In game-based learning, adaptive learning mechanisms should also be integrated. In the ELEKTRA project (Kickmeier-Rust, 2006) for example, an adap-tive learning engine was integrated, “…whichinterpretsgameevidence,assessestheimpactoftheevidenceontheskillrepresentationoftheuserandreturningso-calledadaptiveinterven-tionswhichaimatsupportingandmotivatingtheuserforexampleintheformofdialogues.”(Göbel et al., 2009, p. 7).

While making progress in a digital game requires the gathering of certain knowledge and skills, this does not preclude users of seeing them as entertaining however. This is due to the fact that games can be intrinsically motivating and thus provide an enjoyable and fun experience (Ritterfeld, Cody, & Vorderer, 2009). When an activity is perceived as enjoyable, it will result in a higher likelihood of repetitive usage (Rit-terfeld, Cody, & Vorderer, 2009, Peng & Liu, 2009). Ideally, educational games should offer the entertainment value of commercial games while featuring an educational component (Rit-terfeld, Cody, & Vorderer, 2009). This is where a serious game design document is required in which not only the setting and storyline is de-fined, but also characters, themes and synthetic environments to improve specific knowledge, skills and attitudes of players (Bryan, 2006). Therefore, games aiming to teach certain skills, knowledge and attitudes will be more effective when the game document is rooted in well-established learning principles (Lieberman, 2006; Peng & Liu, 2009). A study of Khazzari et al. (2012) has however shown that the integra-tion of theory in game design is often neglected. When theories are integrated, the most com-monly used are Social Cognitive Theory and Theory of Planned Behavior (Khazarri et al., 2012). Therefore when developing a concept design document or a game design document, it is advisable to combine knowledge of an interdisciplinary team of researchers, game developers and experts in the area of subject, to ensure theoretical elements and game features based on theories are implemented in the game (Peng & Liu, 2009). Peng and Liu also state that

users and the environment where the game will be played should be taken into account when developing a game with educational purposes.

Accordingly, the main goal of the present study was to involve the potential users in the idea generation process for the development of the game design document in order to develop an game for road safety that these youngsters would find enjoyable to play. More specifically, co-design sessions were organized as part of the concept development of an educational location-based game dealing with traffic safety.

CO-DESIGN/CO-CREATION

Co-design is a user-centered design methodol-ogy originating in innovation research where it is applied to map the use contexts of new technologies and to identify existing gaps and opportunities (Kristensson, Matthing, & Johansson 2008; Sleeswijk Visser, Stappers & Van der Lugt, 2005). In the telecommunications industry, for example, co-design is used to detect opportunities for future mobile phone services (Kristensson, Matthing, & Johansson, 2008) and to support user-friendly design of multimedia platforms (Scaife et al., 1997) and expected navigation structures of PDAs (Amico et al., 2006). Also in the health sector it has been used to explore unmet needs of diabetic patients and detect new opportunities for improving their future living experiences (Sanders & Stap-pers, 2008). Overall, most of the contexts in which co-design is used are technology- and application-oriented.

Co-design is a subcategory of co-creation. Co-creation refers to collective creativity shared by at least two individuals. Co-design, on the other hand, refers to the use of collec-tive creativity throughout the design process (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Co-design thus refers to the actual ‘designing together’, while co-creation has a broader scope and includes ‘… applications ranging from the physical to the metaphysical and from the material to the spiritual’ (Sanders & Stappers, 2008 p 2). Co-design is typically a collaboration between



designers and non-designers such as important stakeholders or end users (Sanders, Brandt & Binder, 2010). The terms co-creation and co-design are rooted in user- centered design (Sanders, 2002). The user-centered approach aims to tune development to the needs of the user and user-centered design then refers to ‘…design processes in which end-users influence how a design takes shape’ (Abras, Maloney-Krichmar, & Preece, 2004, p1). User-centered design can involve a variety of methods such as usability testing, focus groups, interviews, task analysis, heuristic evaluation etc. (Holzinger, 2005). However, most of these methods gauge a reaction when the product is already at a later stage in the design cycle and does not consist of any input initiated by the user at the begin-ning of the design process. This often leads to neglect of users’ needs that could have been explored using user centered design methods. Considering time, money and effort which have already been invested, making radical changes to the design in a later stage often proves dif-ficult (Van den Abeele & Van Rompaey, 2006).

Participatory design is a user-centered design method which has gained popularity in the past decade and was initially used in Scandinavian countries (Scaife, Aldrich, & Davies, 1997). In the context of participatory design, users are treated as partners. Tradition-ally, this involves evaluative research such as testing existing products or prototypes. In the context of exploring innovations, users take part in generative research, which implies users inspiring and informing the design team in the early phases of the design process (Sleeswijk Visser, Stappers, & Van der Lugt, 2005). Co-creation and co- design can thus be placed under participatory design (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Co-design and co-creation are mostly used as explorative research methods. Whilst game development involves the creation of technology, it consists for the larger part of content creation. Co- creation or co-design have, however, only rarely been used as a supporting tool for content creation and gaining insight in what themes, subjects or content that would interest a target group.

USER-CENTERED DESIGN IN THE GAMING INDUSTRY

User-centered design has previously been used in game design. These cases were restricted to user input during evaluation or testing, however, limiting the influence of the user on the design process (Pagulayan et al., 2003). Most studies reporting to have used co-design or co-creation, did not focus on the user but involved profes-sionals from the supply side of the industry (Järvinen, 2005; Kultima et al., 2008). In some cases, co-design was used to gain insight in the users’ needs. Designers from Nintendo, for example, have used co-design to create game concepts for certain target groups such as children with learning attention deficit disorder (Walsh, 2009) and visual impairment (Willems et al., 2011). The Discoverer (Gambas, 2011), which is aimed at children with visual impair-ment, is designed in such a way that it can be played together by both sighted and non-sighted children. ‘’The game concepts generated for the ADHD children did not pass the low-tech prototyping phase however. Another study by Van den Abeele and Van Rompaey (2006) used co-design to develop game concepts for senior citizens. In this study, positive experiences in the daily lives of senior citizens were mapped, resulting in a model of passions among elderly people which provided a basis for developing game concepts. Thus co-design has previously been used in the context of game concept de-velopment, but, to our knowledge, never in the context of developing learning games.

DEVELOPING A CONCEPT FOR A LOCATION-BASED SERIOUS GAME

The co-design sessions in this study were part of a larger study aiming to develop a concept and game design document for a serious game dealing with traffic safety. In a first phase, an extensive state of the art analysis was con-ducted. This study allowed us to gain insight into the game market in Flanders and focused



on serious games with best practice examples. In a second part, the study integrated relevant learning principles and theories. In the third and final part an extensive analysis of the issue of traffic safety with regard to adolescents was conducted. The popularity of mobile gaming devices and gaming via mobile phones among younger adolescents in combination with the mobility aspect of traffic safety resulted in the decision to develop a location-based game.

In a second part of the study, a focus group with traffic safety experts was organized in order to gain insight into the traffic safety issue specifi-cally linked to the target group. The focus group confirmed most of the information gathered in the state of the art analysis. It was pointed out, for example, that unsafe behavior in traffic is often a result of risky behavior (as a result of low risk perception), lack of knowledge about traffic safety rules, lack of anticipation regarding other road participants and a general lack of traffic experience. The focus group participants also provided information regarding the problematic behavior of specific groups of participants in traffic: pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, car passengers (who are often forgotten) and car drivers. Finally, they provided us with informa-tion regarding ‘punishment’ strategies that work best with adolescents when they break traffic rules. Short term consequences are more effec-tive for example when it comes to adolescents. Punishments such as a fines or time investment such as following a traffic safety course will be more likely to have an impact on adolescents than pointing out the consequences of an ac-cident: the fear of getting caught and having to lose money or time is much bigger than the fear of getting into an accident.

Interviews with traffic safety experts in the field of high school education, guided us towards a format aiming at motivating both the target group and intermediaries, by which we mean school principals and teachers, to take part in the game and thus the traffic safety campaign by letting them play in a school context. While the game has not been developed yet, it was already important to work out a format in the game design document in order to reach a large audi-

ence. Experience has shown that distribution and marketing of a serious game is as important as developing a good serious game concept. The interviewees, who had a lot of experience with introducing traffic safety campaigns, made it clear that, when introducing a new project aimed at activities in a school context, teachers will be more eager to participate when a ready-to-use, instant solution is provided. Hence, our choice to implement the location-based game in five larger cities in Flanders using a lending formula: phones with the game installed will be provided by a partner that will be specified in a later phase of the project. This limits the role of the school/teacher to organizing transportation from the schools to the closest city center where the game can be played.

A final step in developing a concept docu-ment for the game concerning traffic safety was gathering input from the target group. This paper explores in which areas co-design can provide value in addition to the methods mentioned earlier.

METHODOLOGY

The co-design sessions aimed at exploring four aspects of a location-based game experience: city locations, mobile phone features to be integrated in the game, themes and gameplay elements. Five classes coming from five dif-ferent schools participated in the co-design sessions. The sessions took place in the school environment during two lesson hours. In total, 72 adolescents between 15 and 18 years took part in the study of which 38 were male and 34 female. Classes were divided in groups of 3 to 6, depending on the size of the class. Six groups consisted of exclusively female participants, six groups of exclusively male participants and five groups of both male and female participants in order to explore whether other types of themes and game mechanics would come forward depending on the group composition. The co-design sessions consisted of three phases: an ice breaker part, where a video was shown and a brainstorm was organized to create a play-



ful atmosphere and stimulate out-of-the-box thinking, a map task, where game concepts where developed in order to get an insight in game mechanics, mobile phone features and locations that would interest the participants, and a scenario task, where a game scenario was developed in order to get insight in which storylines would interest the target group. Due to practical reasons, 6 groups (3 girl groups and 3 boy groups) only developed 1 concept for the map task instead of 2. 6 other groups also did not succeed in finishing two concepts for the first task. In total, this generated 39 game concepts. The data where gathered by filming the teams when explaining their game concepts to their classmates and were transcribed afterwards. We chose to not only use the ‘physical’ data gener-ated (such as drawings/collages of the game concepts), due to the fact that game mechanics or the use of certain mobile phone applications in their game concepts are not always explicitly to be found on the generated output.

During every session, the game developer was present. While there was no consistent collaboration between the developer and the participants we have still chosen the term co-design for these sessions for two reasons. Firstly, the developer moved between the smaller groups in the classroom during the idea generation processes for the map task and the scenario task, evaluating their ideas and helping with the elaboration of the ideas where necessary. Secondly, when the game concepts had to be presented to the rest of the class after each task, the game developer elaborated on the ideas and asked further questions and feedback from the rest of the class when necessary.

All ideas were transcribed, coded and analyzed in nVivo, a qualitative software pack-age most commonly used to code interviews and focus group output. For the analysis, no codebook was created in advance (Heath & Cowley, 2004). The coding took place in two phases; in a first phase the game concepts were coded at the lowest level, which means open coding was used to reduce data. With open coding, data referring to similar content are grouped and conceptualized. In a second

phase, axial coding was used, referring to the structuring and categorization of themes, game mechanisms, places to play and mobile phone applications. We added one attribute value to the game concepts, i.e. gender composition of the group (idea generated by female, male or mixed group). A matrix coding query made it possible to distinct themes, mechanics, applica-tions and locations put forward by the different gender groups.

The Ice Breaker

An ice breaker is used to create a fun and play-ful atmosphere, stimulating the participants’ creativity and out of the box thinking (Byttebier & Vuilings, 2009). After a short introduction presenting the purpose of the sessions, an in-troductory movie was shown. This concerned ‘The moonwalking bear awareness test’ (Do-thetest, 2008) that was previously used in the context of a traffic safety campaign for cyclists in Great- Britain. This video was used to make the participating youngsters aware of how eas-ily something can be missed when distracted and thus how important it is to behave safely in traffic and keep other road participants into account. Afterwards, in order to broaden their perspectives, a brainstorm took place with the whole class covering three topics: current pos-sibilities with/applications on mobile phones, means of transportation, and games played on the mobile phone. (Figure 1)

Map Task: Gaming in the City

For this task, the participants received a map of the city where the school is located and were instructed to point out two places in the city center where they would like to play a game on a smartphone. After pointing out these locations with colored stickers, they were asked to invent a game on both locations taking into account the possibilities of current smartphones and the different means of transportation in the city. The participants had 20 minutes to develop their game concepts. Finally, the participants wrote down their game ideas on ‘game cards’ and presented them to their classmates. (Figure 2)



Figure1.Brainstormasanicebreaker

Figure2.MapofAntwerpusedinmaptask



Scenario Task

In the second part of the exercise, participants received three scenarios printed on A3 paper laying out the storyline of a game (see Figure 3). In this way, they were introduced to the concept of a storyline and how it can be integrated in a game. The scenarios consisted of a starting and ending point in the city and obstacles along the way. Below an example of a scenario that was used:

Youhavetogotoapartytonight,buttheorga-nizerisverysicktodayandwouldliketorestbeforethepartystarts.Youcanfindallkindsofpartymaterialinthecitythatyouneedtopickup.Youalsohaveanumberofmeansoftransportationavailableforyoutouse.Beforeyoucan transportcertain items to theparty,youhavetopickuptherightvehicles.Yougettwohours to complete your task.Rememberthat it is Saturday evening and the city iscrowded so youmay bump into various ob-stacles.

After the scenarios had briefly been dis-cussed, the groups received an empty scenario sheet and they were instructed to invent a new scenario using all sorts of creative materials such as drawing equipment, magazines, glue, scissors, stickers, etc. Again, 20 minutes were foreseen to develop their game concept. One co-design session took approximately 2 lesson hours (2 times 50 minutes). For the ice breaker part, 15 minutes were foreseen. Both the map task and the scenario task took approximately 20 minutes. After every task, 10 minutes were foreseen for the presentation of the game con-cepts to the rest of the class group. (Figure 4)

RESULTS

The map task delivered useful insights for all 4 aspects of a location-based game experience: location, game mechanics, mobile phone fea-tures and themes. The scenario task delivered usefull insights for two aspects of this experi-ence: themes and game mechanics.

Figure3.MapofGhentusedinmaptask



Thirty out of thirty-nine game concepts (see Table 1) did not include competition between teams in the city, but had to be played by one team. While a large part of the female groups developed games that consisted of collecting objects, numbers or coordinates in the city, shooting at targets or other teams in the city was a concept brought forward by a majority of male groups. Female groups also integrated scoring systems such as an energy meter and a popularity meter. Male groups did not integrate any scoring system in their game concepts. These groups thought of a level system with every place in the city representing another stage. Two female groups also integrated a ‘day and night’ level system that made the game change from daytime to night time every half hour, so every half hour the difficulty level and gameplay would vary.

• Location: Local Park;• Game: The aim of the game is to collect

as much money as possible and become as rich as possible. Every player starts with a certain budget and has a certain amount of

energy. You will lose energy with every step you take. With the money you earn, you can buy yourself a scooter for example. In the beginning, the only thing you will probably be able to buy is a bicycle. As the game evolves and you collect money, you will be able to buy a scooter, a car, etc. and sell your old stuff to collect more money. Every hour, day changes into night and vice versa; at night there are more obstacles such as people sitting in the park which makes you need certain supplies such as a flashlight. By collecting money you can climb up the social ladder from a homeless person to a billionaire. To gain energy you have to stop at places to eat something. On the go, you can also earn money by fulfilling certain tasks. The police can also form an obstacle in the game: when you’re a tramp for example, they can send you away. When you get attacked in the city you also lose all your energy points. There are different tasks for earning money and energy points. When you’re rich, it is more difficult to lose energy, because you will have to eat less;

Figure4.Exampleofprintedpre-madescenario



when you eat in cheaper diners you will gain less energy for the same amount of food than at a more expensive restaurant. When you can buy the biggest villa avail-able in the game and when you are able to buy a private jet, you win the game

Significant attention was given to the way instructions were provided to the team about the next task or the next location. The most popular ways to give instructions were via text message, e-mail, video fragments or phone calls. Results showed that for the adolescents’ interaction with the ‘real world’ and especially with other people that did not directly partake in the game was an important element.

• Location: Local Park;• Game: There are two teams: each team

needs to pick a store. The aim is to lure as many people as possible into that store. Another person belonging to your team is located at the beginning of the Veldstraat [large shopping street in Ghent, authors]. This person takes pictures of people who are walking into the Veldstraat and sends them to the phone of the other people belonging to the team, standing inside or in front of

the shop they’ve chose. This way, the team knows which people they need to lure into the shop. Hence, it is important to choose people who are very noticeable, so the other persons of your team can recognize them.

When looking at coding references for themes in game concepts (see Table 2), the results show that crime is a very popular theme. While in female groups the crime theme mostly consisted of saving people in the city or solving crimes, in male groups it was mostly related to killing or shooting people. Other popular themes were map quests which required solving puzzles, for example finding your way out of a virtual maze. Fashion and news also popped up in more than one game concept.

You have to solve the economic crisis by bringing gold to the money factory. Before you can start you have to go to Einstein first, because he can give you a bomb to open your mine. But Einstein won’t just give you the bomb: you have to go to his drug dealer first, because he needs them. On your way to the drug dealer, it is possible that weird people pass you by that will make you lose some time or points. Pass-ing a duck also makes you lose five minutes every time. To transport the drugs from the

Table1.Numberofcodereferencesforgameconceptscontainingfollowinggamemechanics

Game Mechanics Female Male Mixed Total

Collecting 5 1 1 7

Competition 3 1 5 9

Cooperation 0 0 3 3

Hints 0 0 2 2

In game skills 2 1 0 3

Instructions 0 1 11 12

Interation with environment 2 0 1 3

Levels 2 1 0 3

Money 2 1 1 4

Scoring system 3 0 1 4

Shooting 1 3 3 7

Speed/race against time 3 1 2 6



dealer to Einstein, you have the pass a certain person which you have to give something or being able to pass. Once you brought the bomb back, you can start mining and once you have started this, it is possible to go to the underground to higher the value of your gold. You can also get a mine cart in order to being able to transport 50 kg instead of 40 kg at a time. You need 500 kg of gold to solve the crisis (Figure 5).

When looking at coding references for mobile phone features integrated in the games, the results show that these were remarkably basic (see Table 3) despite the fact that current possibilities with mobile phones/applications such as Bluetooth, an accelerator, a gyro com-pass, etc. were extensively discussed in the brainstorm at the beginning of the sessions.

Table2.Numberofcodereferencesforgameconceptscontainingfollowingthemes

Themes Female Male Mixed Total

Actuality 1 2 2 4

Bounty Quest 2 2 2 6

Building things 0 0 1 1

Criminality 5 4 5 15

Dating 0 0 1 1

Fantasy 1 1 2 4

Fashion 0 0 3 3

Map Quest 0 1 2 3

Military 0 1 0 1

Figure5.scenariomadebyparticipants



Most often integrated mobile phone tech-nologies were the camera, text messages, the call function and the flashlight

The concept of augmented reality was also popular in several groups and was integrated in a number of game concepts, such as in the capture the flag concept in which the opposing team would have to search for a ‘virtual’ flag.

• Location: City Park;• Game: ‘Capture the flag’: by using your

camera, you are able to see where the other team put down their flag. The aim of the game is to bring their flag to your own base. It is also possible to shoot people from the other team: when this happens, they have to go back to their base to regain their life. This all happens virtually in the city environment.

Places indicated on the maps were mostly river surroundings, parks, squares and histori-cal buildings (see Table 4). Cultural buildings

such as theatres and historical buildings such as medieval castles were more popular among boys. Other popular locations were train sta-tions, local diners and shopping districts.

• Location: Gravensteen;• Game: Race against time: one of the team

members is stuck in the Gravensteen (Gh-ent Castle of Counts). The aim of the game is to liberate that person. All teams start at different places in the city and have to get from one place to another by solving puzzles. An example could be: go to the highest location in Ghent. Once you ar-rive there you will get a boat ticket and then you will have to find the right boat. But be careful, because there is a mole in your group who can make you run around certain areas where you also risk being kidnapped. There are places in the city where you can earn hints. Your team can also get texts containing extra tasks that need to be fulfilled.

Table 3. Number of code references for game concepts containing followingmobile phoneapplications

Application Female Male Mixed Total

Bluetooth 0 0 1 1

Call function to keep in contact with other team 2 2 2 6

camera 1 1 2 4

Text message 0 1 1 2

flashlight 3 0 0 3

Augmented reality 1 3 2 6

clicking things away with touchscreen 0 2 0 2

Face recognition 1 0 0 1

Hologram 1 0 0 1

Laser 0 0 1 1

Virtual browsing in the city 0 0 1 1

GPS 0 1 1 1

Timetables public transportation app 1 0 0 1



CONCLUSION

The co-design sessions were useful in gathering ideas from the target audience and broadening the designers’ perspective, resulting in the integration of multiple elements coming from the co-design game concepts in the final game design document. The integration of entire game concepts was not possible, because of the adolescents’ lack of knowledge of technology and in some cases the ideas generated where too far-fetched or meant as a joke. Nonethe-less, the co-design sessions were useful in that they gave the game developer and researchers the possibility to pick up certain elements that recurred in different concepts and seemed to interest the participants. While participatory design is commonly used at a prototyping stage, organizing co-design sessions before an actual serious game design document is created, offers the opportunity to take users preferences and needs into account and thus possibly integrate before development has started.

The co-design was especially useful in gaining insight in locations that attract the par-ticipants to play mini-games, game mechanics and more precisely scoring systems (popularity points, energy meters, money), ways to give

instructions about next tasks or locations and organizing level systems. The co-design was also useful in gaining insight into which gen-eral themes would interest the participants in a location-based game. It is important to state that co-design does not deliver ready-to use ideas or that it provides complete insight into the themes or game mechanics that would attract the whole target group. Rather, co-design should be regarded as a useful method to broaden the per-spective of the game developers and researchers and inspire the game concept development. In contrast to the sessions organized by Van den Abeele and Van Rompaey (2006) we did not let the teams work out one concept at the end of the sessions, combining elements from the concepts generated by each group separately. In that aspect, our results were more similar as the study from Willems et al. (2011) where different game concepts inspired the game development and different mechanisms and themes where picked up in the game design document.

Although it was mentioned at the beginning of the sessions that the aim of the exercise was the development of a game for traffic safety, only a few groups integrated it. Considering the fact that the co-design sessions aimed at gaining insight into themes, game mechanics, locations

Table4.Numberofcodereferencesforgameconceptscontainingfollowinggamemechanics

Locations Female Male Mixed Total

Busstop 1 0 0 1

cinema 1 0 1 2

cultural buildings 0 2 0 2

Game played ON train 0 1 0 1

Historical buildings 1 2 2 5

Library 1 0 0 1

Local diners 1 0 1 2

Parc 2 1 3 6

River surroundings 2 3 2 7

Shopping district 0 1 2 3

Squares 2 2 1 5

Station 1 1 1 3



and mobile phone applications, participants were not explicitly asked to link their game concepts to traffic safety. The groups that did integrate traffic safety in their game concepts, did this in a rather scholarly way by for example putting forward a game concept in which one has to find one’s way through a maze by follow-ing the traffic safety rules. Therefore, it could have been interesting to integrate traffic safety experts in the co-design sessions and to let the participants generate actual ideas for a game with educational purposes, as was implemented in the study of Willems et al. (2011) by also letting experts on the development of blind children participate in the sessions.

The game developer who was involved from the start of this project as a consultant, also had a set of game concepts in mind. He was somewhat skeptical regarding the potential of the co-design sessions to deliver actually usable input but in the end provided a document with feedback in which he acknowledged the added value of the co-design sessions.

We see two specific areas in which co-design can be used as a research instrument in our product pipeline:

• Serious games: A game that has another primary purpose than merely entertain-ment is a special case. It is obviously required to involve experts (for example using focus groups). However, it is still important that the pedagogical purposes and learning models do not interfere with the ‘fun’ element of games and an optimal experience is attained. In order to do this, one needs to understand the interests of the target group. That’s where the co-design sessions come in;

• Specific target groups: In this case we mean target groups that are not always available for our company such as chil-dren, adolescents, people with different cultural backgrounds, elderly and people with certain disabilities. Co-design sessions provide a way to ask input from the target group in an easy, smooth and playful way.

In the final game design document several ideas coming from different game concepts have been adopted. Examples are the scoring systems which several groups came up with, such as a popularity meter and a budget meter, the level-ing system linked with different locations in the city and the idea climbing up the social ladder as the aim of the game. Due to confidentiality reasons, we cannot further elaborate on the actual content of the game design document, considering the game is still under development.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTHER RESEARCH

This study has shown that co-design sessions with the target audience can provide useful additional input to more traditional research methods such as literature review and expert consultation. There are a number of areas that need to be mentioned in which further improvement may be possible. By providing the adolescents with three example scenarios, we should ask ourselves to what extent this influenced the ideas of the target group and the ways in which it limited their creativity. On the other hand, by giving them complete freedom without any guidance or boundaries, one might wonder whether the generated game concepts would still be useful. Probably, the best scenario is to find middle ground between these two extremes. Further research could explore and compare different scenarios.

Another limitation brought forward by the game developer was the lack of technological knowledge of the youngsters: they do not always know what is possible in a game. This is prob-ably due to the nature of the technology used in this project however. At the time of this study, smartphones are still not widespread among adolescents between 15 and 18 in Flanders.

Finally, there is also the issue of target groups or individuals that have little or no inter-est in gaming. When the traffic safety game will go in production, it is our aim to keep the target group involved in later phases of the design process in order to get feedback about certain



in game goals, game ideas, graphics, person-ages, etc. It will also be important to keep them involved in testing beta versions of the game in order to see if the difficulty level of the game is adapted to the skills of youngsters coming from different educational levels and types and both gamers and non-gamers. Testing will also be useful in analyzing whether the game does indeed teach the adolescents new knowledge, skills and attitudes towards traffic safety and whether the game creates an enjoyable game experience.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We would like to thank Winok Oplinus from Levenslijn Kinderfonds, Marc Dupain from VMMa and Dirk Verhoeven from the Flemish Government administration. We would also like to thank Laurence Claeys for helping with the design of the co-design sessions and Dieter Rommel from La Mosca for being involved in the co-design sessions.

REFERENCES

Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2004). User-centered design. In W. Bainbridge (Ed.), Encyclopediaofhuman-computerinteraction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Amico, M. D., Deregibus, E., Marzani, S., & Mon-tanari, F. T. (2006). Between coherence and specific-ity: How to maintain the usability when users access to a web sites from a PDA. In ProceedingsoftheMobileGuide2006, Turin, Italy.

Benett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understand-ing of students’ technology experiences. Journalof Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321–331. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x.

Bergeron, B. P. (2006). Developingseriousgames. Hingham, MA: Charles River Media.

Dothetest (2008, March 10). Themoonwalkingbear [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSQJP40PcGI

Gamevision Europe & Interactive Software Federa-tion of Europe. (2010). VideogamersinEurope2010. Retrieved July, 2011, from http://www.isfe.eu/sites/isfe.eu/files/video_gamers_in_europe_2010.pdf

Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: a research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607.

Göbel, S., Mehm, F., & Radke, S. (2009). 80Days: Adaptive digital storytelling for digital educational games. In Y. Cao, A. Hanneman, B. Fernández-Manjón, S. Göbel, C. Hockemeyer & E. Stefanakis (Eds.), Proceedingsofthe2ndInternationalWorkshoponStory-TellingandEducationalGames(Vol.498). Aachen, Germany: CEUR Workshop Proceedings Graffiti Jeugddienst, Jeudwerknet & MICT-IBBT (2010). Apestaartjaren 3: Research report. Re-trieved July, 2011, from http://www.apestaartjaren.be/node/585

Heath, H., & Cowley, S. (2004). Developing a grounded theory approach: a comparison of Glaser and Strauss. InternationalJournalofNursingStudies, 41, 141–150. doi:10.1016/S0020-7489(03)00113-5 PMID:14725778.

Helsper, E., & Enyon, R. (2009). Digital natives: where is the evidence? BritishEducationalResearchJournal, 36(3), 1–18.

Holzinger, A. (2005). Usability engineering methods for software developers, Communications of theACM–interactiondesignandchildren,48(1), 71-74.

Järvinen, A. (2005). Theory as game: Designing the GameGame. In ProceedingsoftheDiGRAConfer-ence, Vancouver, Canada.

Kelly, H., Howell, K., Glinart, E., Holding, L., Swain, C., Burrowbridge, A., & Roper, M. (2007). How to build serious games. CommunicationsoftheACM, 50(1), 45–49.

Kharrazi, H., Shirong Lu, A., Gharghabi, F. & Cole-man, W. (2012). A scoping review of health game research: Past, present, and future. GamesforHealthJournal:Research,Development,andclinicalap-plications,1(2), 153-164

Kickmeier-Rust, M. D., Schwarz, D., Albert, D., Verpoorten, D., Castaigne, J.-L., & Bopp, M. (2006). The ELEKTRA project: Towards a new learning experience. In M. Pohl, A. Holzinger, R. Motschnig, & C. Swertz (Eds.), M3–Interdisciplinaryaspectsondigitalmedia&education (pp. 19–48). Vienna: Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft.



Kristensson, P., Matthing, J., & Johansson, N. (2008). Key strategies for the successful involve-ment of customers in the co-creation of new technology-based services. International JournalofServiceIndustryManagement, 19(4), 474–491. doi:10.1108/09564230810891914.

Kultima, A., Niemelä, J., Paavilainen, J., & Saaren-pää, H. (2008, November). User experiences of game idea generation games. In Proceedingsofthe2008conferenceonFuturePlay:Research,Play,Share, Toronto, Canada.

Law, E. L.-C., & Kickmeier-Rust, M. D. (2008). 80Days: Immersive digital educational games with adaptive storytelling. In R. Klamma, N. Sharda, B. Fernández-Manjòn, H. Kosch, & M. Spaniol (Eds.), ProceedingsoftheFirstInternationalWorkshoponStory-TellingandEducationalGames(STEG’08)-Thepowerofnarrationandimaginationintechnol-ogyenhanced learning,vol.386. Maastricht, The Netherlands: CEUR Workshop Proceedings.

Lieberman, D. A. (2006). What can we learn from playing interactive games? In P., Vorderer & J., Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 379-397). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Michael, D., & Chen, S. (2006). Serious games:Gamesthateducate,train,andinform. Boston, MA: Thomson Course Technology.

Moreno-Ger, P., Burgos, D., Martínez-Ortiz, I., Sierra, J. L., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2008). Educational game design for online education. Computers inHumanBehavior, 24(6), 2530–2540. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.012.

Pagulayan, R. J., Keeker, K., Wixon, D., Romero, R., & Fuller, T. (2003). User-centered design in games. In J. A. Jacko, & A. Sears (Eds.), Thehuman-computerinteractionhandbook:Fundamentals,evolvingtech-niquesand emergingapplications (pp. 883–905). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Peng, W., & Liu, M. (2009). An overview of using electronic games for health purposes. In Handbookofresearchoneffectiveelectronicgamingineduca-tion. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immi-grants, part II: Do they really think differently? Ho-rizon, 9(6), 1–9. doi:10.1108/10748120110424843.

Prensky, M. (2005). Engage me or enrage me. EDU-CASEReview, 40(5), 61–64.

Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., & Vorderer, P. (2009). Seriousgames:Mechanismsandeffects. New York, NY: Routledge.

Sanders, E. B. N. (2002). From user-centered to participatory design approaches. In J. Frascara (Ed.), Designandthesocialsciences. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Books. doi:10.1201/9780203301302.ch1.

Sanders, E. B. N., Brandt, E., & Binder, T. (2010). A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. In ProceedingsofthePar-ticipatoryDesignConference, Sydney, Australia.

Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068.

Sanders, J., & Morrison, C. (2007). What is the net generation? The challenge for future medi-cal education. Medical Teacher, 29(2-3), 85–88. doi:10.1080/01421590601176380 PMID:17701615.

Scaife, M., Rogers, Y., Aldrich, F., & Davies, M. (1997). Designing for or designing with? Informant design for interactive learning environments. In S. Pemberton (Ed.), ProceedingsoftheSIGCHIConfer-enceonHumanfactorsinComputingSystems (pp. 343-350). New York, NY: ACM.

Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native – myth and reality. In A. Spink (Ed.), Aslib Proceedings, 61(4), 364–379.

Sleewijk Visser, F., Stappers, P. J., & Van Der Lugt, R. (2005). Contextmapping: experi-ences from practice. CoDesign, 1(1), 119–149. doi:10.1080/15710880500135987.

Ulrich, M. (1997). Links between experiential learning and simulation & gaming. In Proceedingsofthe28thAnnualInternationalConferenceoftheInternationalSimulationandGamingAssociation (ISAGA) (pp.269-275). Tilburg, Netherlands.

Van den Abeele, V., & Van Rompaey, V. (2006, April). Introducing human-centered research to game design: Designing game concepts for and with senior citizens. In ProceedingsoftheCHI2006, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.



AnissaAllreceivedherdegreeinCommunicationSciencesatGhentUniversity,Belgium.SinceJuly2011AnissaworksasajuniorresearcheratiMinds-MICT(GhentUniversity).Shemainlyisinvolvedinprojectsconcerninggame-basedlearning,suchastheconceptdevelopmentofaroadsafetygameandhasbeeninvolvedinastudyconductedforIPTSconcerningDigitalGamesforEmpowermentandInclusion.Further,AnissaisinvolvedinLivinglabresearch.

JanVanLooyisassistantprofessorattheresearchgroupforMediaandICT(iMinds-MICT)atGhentUniversity,Belgium,whereheandhisteamconductmultidisciplinaryresearchintoimmersivemediausageandgaming.Currenttopicsincludedigitalgameusageandexperience,genderandgaming,stereoscopic3Dapplicationuse,omnidirectionalvideo,andseriousgamesforraisingawarenessofsocietalissues,forlanguagelearning,formathematicseducation,forincreasingtrafficsafetyandforimprovingenergyefficiency.

ElenaNúñezCastellarreceivedherdegreeinPsychologyattheUniversidadNacionaldeCo-lombiain2006.Duringthelastyearofherstudiessheworkedasaclinicalneuropsychologyassistantgettingexpertiseintheselectionandinterpretationofstandardizedneuropsychologi-caltests.In2011sheobtainedherdegreeofDoctorinPsychologyfromtheGhentUniversity.DuringherPhDshegotbroadexperiencewithresearchmethodsincognitiveneuroscience,namelyEEG(electro-encephalography)andreactiontimesresearch.Since2012shejoinedtheresearchgroupforMedia&ICT(iMinds-MICT).Sheconductsexperimentalstudiestoevaluatetheeffectivenessofeducationalgames.

Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSEReview, (March/April): 16–30.

Walsh, D. (2009, April). Wii can do it: Using co-design for creating an instructional game. In Pro-ceedingsoftheCHI2009, Boston, MA.

Willems, R., Pinkster, C., Schultz, S., & Kuiper-Hoyng, L. (2011, June). Co-creating a Wii-game for the blind and sighted. In ProceedingsoftheGAXID’11, Bordeaux France.

All, A., Van Looy, J., Núñez Castellar, E. (2013). An evaluation of the added value of co-design...

Documents

Transcript of All, A., Van Looy, J., Núñez Castellar, E. (2013). An evaluation of the added value of co-design...