Leveling Up: An Investigation into Students’ Learning Experiences Within a Role-Playing

Game-Based Learning System Design for DEVC 40 (Fundamentals of Educational

Communication and Technology)

Jon Paul F. Maligalig1

1

College of Development Communication, University of the Philippines Los Baños

College, Laguna, Philippines 4031

ABSRACT

This case study sought to describe how learning occurred in an educational

communication and technology class which used the d6 System, a role-playing game (RPG) –

based learning system.

Thirty-five students enrolled in DEVC 40 Section WX-1R, 2nd

Semester AY 2012-13

were exposed to the d6 System, which turned the class into a game for learning (G4L). As the

classes were being held, direct observation was done to gather data on student performance and

behavior towards the course content and the learning system. At the end of the semester, students

were asked to participate in focused group discussions (FGDs) to elicit their ideas and

perceptions on their experiences within the d6 System.

The students found their experience with d6 as enjoyable, immersive, and engaging. The

System and its activities enabled the students to have memorable learning experiences. The

course content was made relevant and significant by the students because of the System‟s

activities. While the System was found to have some issues regarding balance, learning system

management, and incompatibilities with formal education and “traditionalist” students, the

students considered d6 as “fun and motivational,” “practical and pragmatic,” “interactive and

collaborative,” and “empowering.” This was reflected in the high degree of student performance

(grades) and the students‟ enthusiasm and motivation during class activities.

Keywords: Game; Education; Game-based Learning; RPG; d6 System; Learning System

*Jon Paul F. Maligalig

Telefax: +63 049 536 3697

Email: jpfmaligalig@devcom.edu.ph

INTRODUCTION

The field of education is abuzz with the so-called Learning Paradigm Shift. The teacher-

led, lecture-dominated teaching methods introduced in 19th

Century public education are now

giving way to learner-driven, interactive learning environments. It is also a recent trend in

educational research for educators to explore technologies, especially computer-based ones,

which can be used to facilitate learning in this era of “The Shift.” With computer ownership and

accessibility in developed countries may be high, this may be less practical in developing

countries where high technology costs and irregular Internet access may be prohibitive to this

kind of educational technology research.

One of the many technologies and media being studied is games, specifically computer

and video games. Previous research all point to computer games as viable learning technologies

for today‟s learners; this “emergent field” of research in educational technology, game studies

(also referred to as “ludology” in some literature), mostly deals with digital games and is

“insisting on the legitimacy of computer games as objects of study in their own right, rather than

as „colonized‟ examples of film and narrative (Murray, 2005 as cited by Zagal, 2010).” However,

there is number of researchers who also study analog games (tabletop games/boardgames, card

games, and physical or athletic games). These games are relatively low-cost, both to produce and

to procure. These would appear to be appropriate for deployment in developing countries so their

citizens could also use games in their respective learning systems

A popular type of tabletop game, the pen-and-paper role-playing game (RPG) could be a

promising learning medium to many 21st Century learners. First commercialized in the late

1970s, the RPG combines role-playing, complex rulesets, and narrative. Kestrel (2005) notes that

the RPG is a “live, face-to-face social activity” where the players interact with a moderator (also

called a gamemaster). Together, they build an analog virtual world where the players‟ avatars

(Player Characters or PCs) interact with the gamemaster‟s avatars, who are either friendly (Non-

Player Characters or NPCs) or hostile (Monsters) to the PCs. One of the best known RPGs is

Dungeons and Dragons; its numerous modules (self-contained scenarios) have been transformed

into computer and video game console versions.

As an avid RPG player and former gamemaster, this researcher was fascinated at several

attempts to integrate digital and tabletop RPG rules and conventions into formal and non-formal

education spaces. In a TEDtalk, Schell (2010) made an example of Prof. Lee Sheldon‟s

multilayer game design course, where Sheldon used RPG elements such as an experience point-

based grading system and appropriately-themed class activities (i.e. “quests” and “fighting

monsters”). Sheldon reported in his blog Gaming the Classroom that student averages improved

and that the RPG-based learning system “lets students feel like they‟re earning points for getting

things right instead of losing them for getting things wrong (Laster, 2010). It was this

phenomenon that inspired this researcher to try out a similar system for two courses in the 2nd

Semester of AY 2010-11 – DEVC 40 (Fundamentals of Educational Communication and

Technology) and DEVC 143 (Fundamentals of Video Production). Since then, this RPG-based

learning system, codenamed d6 (in honor of the Dungeons and Dragons d20 System that

inspired it) has undergone three revisions.

This research aims to analyze the learning experiences of one batch of students in DEVC

40 (2nd

Semester, AY 2012-13) who had their classes using the d6 Learning System Design.

DEVC 40 is a core course in the BS Development Communication curriculum, while students

from the BS Agriculture (Major in Agricultural Education and Extension) and BS Math and

Science Teaching degree programs take DEVC 40 as a required course. Since the class is

composed of students from multiple disciplines, the d6 System would be experienced by an

audience of learners with various skills and knowledge. It is hoped that the d6 System will

eventually be used for other courses with positive results.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

This study intended to describe how learning occurred in DEVC 40 Section WX-1R (2nd

Semester, AY 2012-13) when the d6 Learning System Design was used.

It also aimed to:

1. Identify the students‟ learning experiences in the d6 System;

2. Determine which course topics the students found significant or relevant;

3. Enumerate the positive aspects of the d6 System as perceived by the students;

4. Enumerate the negative aspects of the d6 System as perceived by the students;

and

5. Elicit other comments about the d6 System from the students

RESEARCH SCOPE

The case study as a method of inquiry has often been held in low regard. While Flyvbjerg

(2011) argues that the modern case study is seen as “complimentary” to statistical methods, it is

limited by a lack of breadth and “measures of correlation.” Case studies also have a selection

bias (which) may overstate/understate relationships, a weak understanding of occurrence in

population of the phenomena being studied, and an unclear/unknown statistical significance

(Flyvbjerg, 2011). While the case study was deemed appropriate to answer this study‟s research

problem, the results are not intended to be generalized to other populations.

The main data collection method was the focused group discussion (FGD). However, the

researcher also used direct observation and student performance data to triangulate the students‟

perceptions and observations of the d6 System and its use in DEVC 40. While these are

acceptable data sources, no tests (statistical or otherwise) may be used to establish correlation or

relationships between the students‟ perceptions of the d6 System and their level of learning.

During the data gathering, two groups of students had scheduling conflicts with other

classes; thus, they were under time pressure during the final activity and FGD. To address this,

the researcher decided to have the students write their responses to the FGD questions and

submit these along with their other papers. These students were also allowed and encouraged to

use the class‟ Edmodo site (http://www.edmodo.com) to discuss their responses. Data from these

two groups might not have been as deep or detailed as the ones who had an actual FGD.

Technical issues may have also hindered the implementation of the d6 System in class.

This subsequently affected the research activities related to the implementation of the class. First,

the researcher had administrative duties to perform during some classes; this led to the

suspension of classes on these occasions. Hence, the student performance data might have

affected. Some class content and activities were put up on the class‟ Edmodo site. This was

necessary because some discussions in class were cut short due to time constraints. Student

participation in the Edmodo forums was not considered in the study because not all students had

access to the Internet.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The study utilized a case study design to observe and analyze the learning experiences of

the students. Flyvbjerg (2011) says that if one wants to “understand a phenomenon in any degree

of thoroughness … you need to do case studies.” He also mentions that among the strengths of

the case study are showing the “understanding of context and process” and “understanding of

what causes a phenomenon, linking causes and outcomes (Flyvbjerg, 2011).

The DEVC 40 class implemented in the d6 System was considered a Game for Learning

(G4L), which this researcher defines as a game designed as a higher-order learning system

(Maligalig, 2012). While the traditional use of games in formal learning systems would be as

content delivery media, the G4L are entire learning systems on their own. Through the proper

management of content realism (concrete, abstract) and engagement/immersion (high, low), a

G4L could provide the players/learners with a virtual learning environment where problem-

solving skills such as analysis, evaluation, and creation of knowledge (Maligalig, 2012). The

“games cube,” a graphical representation of the amount of content realism and

engagement/immersion in G4L compared with other media, is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The “Games Cube” (Maligalig, 2012)

The interaction of the main concepts in the study is summarized in Figure 2. The

students‟ learning experiences is the main variable being observed, with the perceptions of the

students on significant/relevant topics learned, impressions on the d6 System, and course

performance data as derived variables from the observation process. For simplification purposes,

the learning system (d6) is considered to have all the required elements (people, ideas,

procedures, devices, organization).

PROCEDURE

Figure 2. Conceptual framework of the study.

PROCEDURE

Population

DEVC 40 Section WX-1R (2nd

Semester AY 2012-13) had 35 students. Thirty-four of the

students came from the BS Development Communication (CDC), BS Agriculture Major in

Agricultural Education and Extension (CA), and BS Math and Science Teaching (CAS) degree

programs in the University of the Philippines Los Baños. The remaining student was a BS

Human Ecology Major in Human and Family Development Studies graduate who was taking

DEVC 40 to qualify for the teacher‟s licensure exam. None of the students had previously taken

the course.

d6 Learning System

STUDENTS

OBSERVATIONS

Focus Group

Discussion

Performance in class

The class was grouped into six (6) teams; each team had at least one member from each

of the degree programs present in the class. This was done because the implementation of the d6

System in the class required group work in the recitation classes.

Instruments

The focused group discussion (FGD) was the primary source of data for the study. After

the final activity for the class (done by team), each of the teams was asked to answer the

following FGD questions: 1. “What were your learning experiences in the learning system?;” 2.

“Which topics or learning in the course was significant or relevant to you?;” 3. “What were the

positive aspects of the learning system?;” 4. “What were the negative aspects of the learning

system?;” and 5. “What other comments or suggestions could you give about the learning

system?” The FGDs were not timed and the researcher allowed the discussion to progress until

all the students‟ responses were exhausted.

To add depth to the analysis of the data from the FGDs, the researcher also performed

direct observation in class and analysis of student performance data. The researcher, as the

faculty in charge of the class, was able to gather his in-class observations through journal

writing. The student performance data, on the other hand, was taken from the daily recording of

experience points (XP) earned by the students. This recording system was integrated by design in

the d6 System; as with commercially available pen-and-paper RPGs, users are required to record

their progression in the game using specialized “character sheets.” For the DEVC 40 class that

used d6, the character sheets were regular UPLB examination “bluebooks” marked with the

students‟ earned XP per class day.

Data Collection

The data gathering period was essentially one semester long, from the start of classes on

13 November 2012 to 5 April 2013. For this duration, lecture and recitation classes were held

regularly. The students were introduced the nuances of the d6 System during the first week of

classes (13 and 15 November 2012). The official start of the DEVC 40 G4L using the d6 System

was on 20 November 2012.

For the lecture classes, “interactive” lectures were given to the students. This type of

lecture was done using a combination of lecture, discussion, and sharing of experiences. XP were

awarded to students immediately after the researcher assessed the relevance of their responses to

questions and statements delivered in class. The list of tasks and their point equivalents for the

lecture class is found in Table 1.

One notable class activity in the lecture class was the use of the open source band game

Frets on Fire X (FoFiX) for the unit on learning theories. To provide a common learning

experience from scratch, the students were introduced to FoFiX. The students then had to apply

the learning theories discussed in class to be able to get a high performance rating in the game.

XP were awarded to the best performing team and to the team with the best costume in a “battle

of the bands”-themed activity. The other teams were awarded based on their FoFiX “star” rating.

In the recitation classes, the students were required to engage in a RPG scenario where

their avatars had to create a “virtual” learning system based on the requirements of certain

learners. In the scenario narrative delivered in the recitation class, the UPLB Chancellor

personally requested the students to address UPLB‟s solid waste management problems. Each

team was assigned to a college of the University. All learning system design (LSD) activities,

from learner analysis to implementation, were done in the RPG scenario. The students‟ final

outputs for the recitation were the LSD plan and RPG session of their “implementation.” XP

were awarded based on the d6 scheme (Table 1). The RPG session was held on 1-5 April 2013.

Table 1. List of class activities and their XP equivalents in the d6 System.

Though they are listed as activities in the recitation class, quizzes and exams did not take

their traditional pen-and-paper forms; substitute activities such as participation in the online

forum on Edmodo (a quiz/“quest”) or the final RPG “implementation” session and the FoFiX

sessions (exams/battles) were done instead.

The FGDs were performed right after each team‟s RPG session (1-5 April 2013). The

researcher recorded each FGD on a laptop computer. However, two teams were not able to

undergo the FGD due to scheduling difficulties. The students of these teams were instead asked

to write their responses to the FGD questions and submit them along with their final LSD

reports. To facilitate these teams‟ discussions among their members, the researcher offered the

use of the Edmodo forums as a venue for their discussions if they could not meet personally.

Using student character sheets and the researcher‟s personal records, the class‟ XP earned

were computed. Each student‟s number of XP earned was then compared to the XP-UP grade

table (Table 2) to get the final grade for the course. It should be noted that the “Rank” column of

the table was for the students to get a qualitative description of their proficiency at each level;

these were in no way used to describe their roles in their respective teams.

Table 2. XP-UP grade table for the d6 System.

To aid in the recording of observations, the researcher also used video footage to capture

several activities in the class. Video was taken for the FoFiX sessions and the RPG

“implementation” session.

Data Analysis

The students‟ responses in the FGDs were compiled by question and classified by theme.

These were cross-referenced with the researcher‟s observations and the students‟ performance

data to generate assumptions on how learning occurs in the d6 System. The average XP earned

and UP grade for the entire class was computed for benchmark/reporting purposes.

The video footage captured was also analyzed to confirm the FGD, observation, and

student performance data. Screen captures from the video were also performed for reporting

purposes.

RESULTS

Learning Experiences in the d6 System

The most common response to the first FGD question remarked on the uniqueness of the

d6 System-based lecture and recitation classes when compared to the more traditional classes the

students attended in the same semester. The students pointed out that they were caught “out of

their comfort zone;” when they got used to the system, the lecture classes were “more lively” and

“interactive.” One student from Team 1 remarked that this kind of interaction was “not forced”

and that this was more “natural.” A student from Team 4 said that these discussions were made

more memorable because “everybody answers … questions and we get all noisy and crazy about

the questions.” This statement was supported by a student from Team 4, who said that the

resulting discussions created what could be interpreted by outsiders as noise, but “hindi ingay

ang na-ke-create (it‟s not really noise that is created).” Some students pointed out that the

discussions “branched out,” encouraging more participation in the discussions. It was observed

that the level of engagement was high during both lecture and recitation classes, as some students

with free time would stay up to an hour after the class to continue their discussions on the day‟s

topics. Most students found their learning experiences “fun” and “challenging.”

At least one member of each Team remarked that the high level of interaction was

possible because of the XP awarded in the d6 System. A student from Team 3 shared that “gusto

ko yung points, nakaka-motiate (I like the points, they motivate me).” A teammate followed this

up by saying that it the learning system was fun because of the “rewards.” In the Team 4 FGD, a

student said that what she liked about the d6 System was that “we have equal chances of getting

points and advancing our level or ranks.” A student from Team 2 remarked that the XP awarded

made the class more “pragmatic”

Since the d6 System awards points for attendance in class, some students said that they

were encouraged to come to class because of the XP awards. A student from Team 3 mentioned

that she had the least number of absences in DEVC 40 because of this. Another student from

Team 2 observed that the d6 System motivated her and her classmates to come to class; she

remarked that this was unlike in her other classes, where her professors would have to strictly

impose student attendance “… katulad ni Hitler (like Hitler).”

The students also found memorable learning experiences in several class activities. The

sessions wherein FoFiX was used was the most cited. A student from Team 4 said that the game

was a “means to discuss and apply our lesson;” this particular student was a guitar player and she

observed that this was a “unique means of learning” for even those who could not play guitar.

Another student shared that his aunt gave him a disapproving look when she found him

practicing for the FoFiX sessions; she did not believe him when he said that he was actually

practicing for his upcoming exam.

The students found the “dragon” RPG scenario as another memorable learning

experience; this scenario was done to prepare the students for the final RPG session. The

scenario challenged the entire class to slay an imaginary dragon using educational media and

techniques discussed in class. The students who found the scenario memorable were able to

grasp its real-life application: to effectively choose and manage educational media to “destroy”

learners‟ disbelief and uncertainty of a certain topic.

The final RPG session, where they “implemented” their LSD plan was also mentioned as

a memorable learning experience. One student from Team 2 said that the RPG activity was

“situational,” relied much on the students‟ imagination, and required the students to think of

ways on how to solve the problems (“paano mo malulusutan”) in the LSD plan. The researcher

was also able to observe the students‟ behavior during these RPG sessions. Individual team

members sought follow their plan but when randomized checks (through six-sided die rolls)

resulted in their plans going awry, the students showed emotional responses such as frustration

and panic; conversely, when their activities in the RPG session were successful, they cheered for

themselves and their teammates. This was also reflected when they were asked to address the

researcher (as gamemaster) as if he were the learners. Some students could hardly control their

emotions as they addressed their “audience of learners.” These displays of emotion could be

interpreted as a suspension of disbelief on the part of the students, where they perceived the RPG

sessions as having a degree of realism that they were undergoing a similar level of stress or

pleasure as if they had actually implemented their LSD plans. Because of this, the researcher

hypothesizes that the students found the RPG sessions memorable because they were able to

undergo a simulated LSD implementation experience without the enormous pressure of failing a

real audience of learners.

The last theme of responses for memorable learning experiences within the d6 System

involved student empowerment. Because the students had a choice on which class activities to

perform without being “required” to do these, the students felt a degree of freedom in the class.

One student said that “Nasa estudyante ang power (The student has the power),” unlike in

traditional, teacher-dominated learning systems. A student from Team 2 stated that she earned

points “eagerly” in class activities, enabling her to gain knowledge on her own terms. Her

teammate added that the students‟ opinions are acknowledged in class. Other students remarked

that the class encouraged them to be creative, where “ideas are drawn out of the students unlike

(in) a spoon-feeding session.” Students also happily stated that their enjoyment in the class

activities resulted in their high grades; this was especially true for those who obtained the highest

possible grade (1.00). One student was inspired by Sir Ken Robinson‟s talks (uploaded for

optional viewing on the class‟ Edmodo site) when she said that “school „destroys‟ us, pero sa

(DEVC) 40, masaya ka sa ginagawa mo (but in DEVC 40, you‟re enjoying what you‟re doing).”

The researcher was also able to observe this at the end of the class, when some students would

sometimes approach him to share their opinions on the different learning system in the

University. The researcher speculates that the experience with the d6 System helped the students

gain insight on their learning experiences not only in DEVC 40 but in other classes as well. This

could be evidence of their critical attitude towards learning, which would have been stimulated

by the content of DEVC 40 and the d6 System.

Relevant and Significant Topics/Learning Within the System

All the topics of DEVC 40 were found to be significant or relevant by the students. While

some of these topics were considered such due to student preferences/interests and usability of

these topics (basics of visual design, presentation techniques, learning system design, and media

use) in their respective degree programs, some topics were also found significant because of the

way they were “experienced” in the d6 System. The FoFiX sessions, specifically, was seen to

help some students grasp the different learning theories. An MST student from Team 6 said that

she had taken already been exposed to learning theories in EDUC 102 but their treatment

(reporting and writing of papers) of the theories had been too complex; she shared that in DEVC

40, the theories had been applied in FoFiX and had not been very technical. Most of the students

reported to have enjoyed the FoFiX sessions versus a straight lecture. Others reported to have

seen the application of the learning theories in FoFiX play (“that‟s why it works!”).

The students were also able to learn and apply the topics of DEVC 40 within the d6

System itself. The most evident example of this phenomenon was for the topic regarding

learning system design. Since the d6 System was in fact a G4L, it is by definition a higher-order

learning system on its own. The researcher observed that some students were asking questions

about d6 and whether they could earn XP by performing class activities differently (i.e. instead

of contributing to the discussion in class, they were allowed to do the same on the Edmodo

forums). While in a normal classroom setting this would be seen as exploiting or cheating the

learning system, these requests were often allowed as they were clear applications of how to

accommodate different learning styles among learners. One student from Team 4 said that it “is

important to know and understand the system you are in so that you can play with it.” She also

noted that “what is important is that we know the effective ways of learning for us.”

It was also observed that the students developed several metaknowledge and metaskills

from their experience within the d6 System. A student from Team 3 mentioned that her

experiences in the class showed her how collaboration helps in developing ideas in a group and

how this creates a new, evolving plan. Another student (Team 6) remarked that, just like in class,

learning systems should be balance to cater to the different needs of its learners. Other students

exhibited critique skills, as they noted that they were now able to look at learning systems

(specifically learning objectives and media use) in their other courses and how they could make

these better. A student from Team 6 said that her new skills in LSD planning could also be used

in her student organization. These responses in the FGD could be evidence that the d6 System,

coupled with the multidisciplinary composition of the teams in the class, supported the students

higher-order learning of analysis, critique, and knowledge creation skills.

Positive Aspects of the d6 System

The themes of student responses for the positive aspects of the d6 System were “fun and

motivational,” “practical and pragmatic,” “interactive and collaborative,” and “empowering.”

The students found the act of earning points (and the activities that accompanied these)

very enjoyable. A student from Team 1 said that she was “shocked” that she enjoyed herself in

class so much. Another student (Team 2) said that she liked that fact that even asking questions

earned her points; her teammate added that the system in the lecture class “forced” even the

passive students to participate, as the mechanism for earning XP in class was fun. Her teammate

also added that students had so much fun in the game system that they forgot it was a class they

were attending (“nawawala sa isip kasi game!”). Other students found the class activities,

especially the FoFiX sessions, “attached (“nakakabit”)” to the topics themselves. Since the

students found these activities fun, the process of learning these topics was also found enjoyable.

Most of the teams also found that they were motivated to come to class since they needed to be

in class to earn XP. One student found that she was not “forced” to class just to pass; she wanted

to earn more points to get a higher grade.

Students who found the d6 System practical and pragmatic remarked that the treatment of

the content focused on applications, not just abstractions of the content. However, most of the

responses for this theme pointed at the XP-earning mechanism as a practical way to assess

student performance in the class. A student (Team 4) said that she saw that her classmates shared

more ideas and experiences in class because these earned points; she reasoned that this

mechanism enabled students who are “very active in (the) participation” to get high grades. This

was also similar to what a student from Team 1 said, that ”pag sumagot, may points, sikap! (“if

you answer, you get points, it‟s all in the effort!”). Despite many group-based activities in the

class, one student (Team 2) found that the d6 System also measured “personal achievement.”

Students said that the light, application-focused treatment of the topics, along with the

free-flowing discussions in the lecture classes, made the class “interactive and collaborative.”

One student (Team 3) found the class discussions “stimulating” because the class talked about

the contents of the course and not just listened to lectures. Another student described the

discussions as a “batuhan ng ideas (“throwing around of ideas”).” A student from Team 2 said

that the class was not “individualistic” and her teammate added that all the topics for discussion

had to be “tested” by the class through the discussions; this researcher can compare this with a

simple form of peer-review within the class. The XP-earning mechanism also contributed to the

interaction in class, as “students were more encouraged to ask and share their insights on a

certain topic, unlike in the conventional learning system where students are more likely to just

listen (Team 4).”

The students found the d6 System “empowering” because they were “free to learn how

they want (Team 6).” One student said that this system was “fit to our generation,” saying that

sometimes they became “victims” of more traditional learning systems implemented by “aging

professors.” Students from Team 1 shared that, in their team, the diversity in ideas and

disciplines encouraged each member to “maximize his/her forte” and “exert efforts” for the team,

for “bombastic results.” Other students also mentioned that there was a “freedom of ideas” in the

class and that the d6 System encouraged them to speak these ideas; the XP to be earned, she said,

outweighed the possible embarrassment from sharing a weak idea in class. Finally, one student

said that because the System did not cap or limit the number of points to be earned for each

activity, they could choose to participate in whatever activities they were most comfortable to

perform. This could be interpreted as another evidence of the empowering nature of the d6

System, its capacity to cater to learners‟ varying learning styles.

Negative Aspects of the d6 System

The students‟ comments on the negative aspects of the System were categorized as

follows: “system‟s game nature,” “system imbalances,” “learning system management issues,”

“individual learner issues,” and “system‟s incompatibilities with formal education.”

Because of its nature as a game, the d6 System was found to be lacking some rules and

guidelines. Some students found this confusing at first because this was their first experience

with a role-playing game-based learning system. This was clarified in the middle of the semester,

when the students were already familiar with the existing rules and knew what to expect. The

non-gamers in the class also had trouble adapting to the mechanics of the activities, especially

during the FoFiX sessions. Because of the system‟s game qualities, some learners reported to be

“distracted” from the learning objectives of specific sessions; it was observed that they forgot

about the content of the session and sought to earn more XP by prolonging discussions on a

single concept. Also, some students said that they saw that this system required more time to

prepare and implement compared with traditional, lecture-centric classes.

The students found several system imbalance issues in this implementation of d6. Several

students noted that sometimes only a few students would dominate the discussions in the lecture

class. This was found to be “intimidating” and would discourage some of the students from

participating in the discussions. A student from Team 2 shared that she sometimes found classes

to become “too competitive;” she said that in these cases, the more “aggressive” students would

thrive and seating arrangement would become a factor whether some students would be called to

participate or not. Another student (Team 4) found that some of her teammates would contribute

much to discussions in the lecture but would not actively participate in the team activities. A

student from Team 6 said that “halos lahat ng activities by group (almost all activities were done

in groups).” This sentiment for more individual activities was echoed by a student from Team 4,

who said that she wanted “(written) quizzes” so she could compare her performance with her

classmates. It was observed by the researcher that the class activities that were done in place of

written quizzes were not considered by the students as “quizzes;” this may indicate that some

students required more traditional evaluation methods for them to be able to gauge their mastery

of the subject matter.

The management of the learning system was also found to have some negative impacts

on the implementation of the d6 System in this class. One student observed that some of her

classmates would hardly participate in team activities; this could add to their XP while they did

insignificant tasks for the activity. She suggested a monitoring system where the faculty in

charge would get real-time feedback from each team on the progress of their activities. Students

also remarked that some discussions in class were “cut down” due to time constraints, “too many

arguments” on a particular concept, or discussions going off-topic. One student said that she

found it difficult to measure learning retention in a system like d6; the researcher noted that this

student was the same one who wanted to take written quizzes. Again, students more comfortable

with traditional classroom learning systems may find some difficulty in adjusting to these aspects

of d6.

Some students reported to have issues that were found to be unique to them. One such

issue had something to do with their personalities – the students who considered themselves to

be “introverts” or “shy” had a more difficult time participating both in the class discussions and

team activities. These students would become “intimidated” by others who actively participated

in class. One of the students in the BS MST program reported that his peers did not participate as

much as they wanted because they felt that the course was primarily for BS DC students.

Because of this, he felt obligated to recite for points despite sharing his peers‟ sentiments. On the

other hand, the more participative students sometimes found themselves “overly excited” to

participate, to the point that their excitement overwhelms them and they could not concentrate

for the rest of the class.

Most of the students said that the biggest challenge the d6 System faced was from its

incompatibilities with formal education conventions. One student (Team 2) said that the class

was not entirely “liberated” from these conventions and that this was a hindrance to what the

students could achieve within the System. Another student remarked that the education system in

the Philippines is “too formal” and most faculty would find d6 difficult to implement. There was

also a response from Team 2 about “traditionalist students,” who won‟t be able to “immerse” in

the d6 System and would not be able to grasp the content because of this. These observations

were shared by the researcher when he saw that most of the students who thrived under the d6

System were those who had experience with games and those who were willing to learn in a

G4L. Those “traditionalist students” were seen to have had a longer time to adjust to the d6

System.

Other Comments on the System

Responses for the last FGD question were classified as follows: “balance related,”

“system related,” “learning system management related,” and “general comments.”

Students who commented on the balance of the d6 System said that it could be improved

if students are given more opportunities to earn XP; more online forum discussions, RPG

sessions in the recitation class, and written quizzes and exams were proposed. Some students

also wanted to improve the XP mechanism by adding more points to some activities while

reducing points for others. Most agreed that the high level of interaction in class was imperative

for the d6 System to work. It was therefore recommended by the students that interaction be

emphasized even more in future implementations of the System.

Comments about the learning system revolved mostly on its appropriateness to the

students‟ learning needs and their perceived applications in other situations. Most of the students

believed that d6 was a good, non-formal learning system that empowered them to “learn at their

own pace” and that d6 would be a “big help to easily-bored students.” However, some students

saw that it could not fit well in the mostly formal education system in the Philippines unless it

was “polished” and “used in other (curricula).” A student from Team 2 said that d6 would be

appropriate for children because they have not yet been “boxed in” with formal education and for

students of the social sciences. Team 3 agreed that d6 “neutralized” the need for specific

“specializations” of learning because of the collaborative nature of the System; each team

member could use his own learning style and talents to make up for the shortcomings of his/her

teammates. A student from Team 5 remarked that the System promoted “democracy” in class

and that it was her “outlet” to make up for her frustrations in her other classes.

Comments about the management aspects of the d6 implementation dealt with the

recording of XP in their character sheets. A student (Team 2) remarked that it would be very

easy to be “dishonest” in recording points; her teammate suggested that a system must be created

to make monitoring of XP easier for both the students and the faculty in charge. Another

teammate suggested that record keeping be checked by the team, so as to reduce the workload of

the faculty in charge and at the same time build rapport and trust within the team.

General comments on the system were mostly about how much they enjoyed their

learning experiences within d6. Members of Team 5 were enthusiastic in sharing their feelings

about the system (“ang saya-saya ko [I‟m so happy],” “relaxed and not pressured,” “sayang na

one hour lang (I regret that it only lasts one hour)!”). A student from Team 2 shared his

observation that games were equal to experiences and that he felt this when he was coming to

class. It was also observed that most of the students who got the highest rating possible in the

class (a UP grade of 1.00) have not gotten this grade in an academic subject before. At least one

team mentioned this, saying that it was their “unang 1.00 na hindi PE (first 1.00 that wasn‟t

Physical Education)!” The researcher saw this as a demonstration of Shackleton-Jones‟ Affective

Context Model of Learning. The model states that people “tag” information in emotional terms

(Shackleton-Jones, 2010). By eliciting emotional responses from the students, the d6 System was

able to make their learning more efficient by providing the appropriate emotional tags by which

to store and retrieve the information from their brains.

Researcher’s Observations and Student Performance Data

Of the 35 students in the class, 16 (45.71%) got a UP grade of 1.00, 11 (31.43%) got a

grade of 1.25, and 8 (22.86%) got a grade of 1.50; none of the students had a lower grade and all

of them passed the course with good marks. This showed that apart from the enjoyment the

students experienced within the d6 System, their level of engagement and immersion helped

them learn the course content to a high degree. It was also recorded during the FGDs that the 16

students who got the 1.00 had excess XP and they wanted to pool these and share them equally

to the rest of the class; the researcher considered their request, but decided to deny it because it

would affect analysis of the student performance data for this study. However, it was observed

that such was the collaborative nature of the implemented d6 class; students who already

achieved their goal wanted to share their success with the rest of the class, regardless of their

team affiliation.

During the classes, the researcher observed that the students were mostly motivated to

come and participate in class. Students were mostly present in class and absences were low for

the entire semester (only one student had more than three absences). Sometimes students would

be so engaged in class that the researcher had to offer to continue small group discussions with

students after the class period; since there was another class scheduled to use the room after

DEVC 40 WX, these discussions had to be done at another venue, which was often the

Department of Educational Communication‟s Instructional Materials Unit. These after-class

discussions lasted an average of 30 minutes each, when they were held. The researcher noted that

the students did not cheat with their record keeping but learned to “exploit” the system by

looking for ways to maximize the XP they earned from their preferred activities. This was

similar to the RPG practice of “grinding,” which involves completing relatively easy tasks

multiple times to increase a player‟s level; he/she then would be more able to take on more

challenges in the game. This strategizing behavior, even among the non-gamers in the class, was

interpreted as evidence of the development of the students‟ higher-order learning capacity.

A final, key observation by the researcher involves the students‟ immersion and

engagement in the d6 System. The students‟ enthusiasm in playing the DEVC 40 G4L could be

explained by the way they interacted with the System. Klug (2011) stated “physical interaction

between players and the game system” induced emotional responses from the players “just from

the way they (systems) work and how the players use them.” He adds that “RPG dice systems

have a particular bonus in the way they evoke player emotion” because the players physically

manipulate the tools for randomized conflict generation – the dice (Klug, 2011). The researcher

believes that by eliciting emotional responses using a RPG-based learning system such as d6,

students are given an opportunity to learn by creating their own affective contexts for the course

content. This type of learning, called “pull learning” by Shackleton-Jones, is further evidence

that higher-order learning occurred in this particular implementation of the d6 System for the

DEVC 40 G4L.

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be made based on the study‟s findings:

1. The students‟ identified their immersion in the d6 System and its activities as a general

learning experience. Specifically, the students identified the FoFiX, “dragon,” and

simulation/RPG sessions as memorable and empowering learning experiences.

2. Students found relevance and significance to course content because of the following:

personal preference and interest, enjoyment of the class activities related to the content,

application of the content to the way they “played” the d6 G4L, and the development of

metaknowledge and metaskills from the content that they could apply to other situations.

3. The students identified the positive aspects of the d6 System as “fun and motivational,”

“practical and pragmatic,” “interactive and collaborative,” and “empowering.”

4. The students reported that the negative aspects of the System were its “game nature,”

“system imbalances,” “issues with learning system management,” “issues with individual

learners,” and its “incompatibilities with formal education.”

5. The overall student sentiment for the System was of acceptance and enjoyment (for

learning within it). They remarked that if the system is improved, it could be helpful for

some students, particularly children and those who get bored easily. It was also observed

that students‟ attitude towards the d6 System enabled them to perform well in class, as

reflected by their final grades, their enthusiasm for the class activities, and their creation

and application of strategies to improve their performance in the G4L.

Based on these findings, it can be assumed that learning in the d6 System occurred in an

enjoyable, immersive, and engaging manner. The System enabled the students to acquire a

learning experience of non-formal education, which was seen by the students as superior to

traditional conceptual learning. Thus, it was speculated that d6 would be an appropriate learning

system-game for learning to use in a higher education setting. Further studies on its effectiveness

versus lecture-based learning systems and its appropriateness for other courses (especially the

physical and biological sciences and mathematics-related courses) are recommended.

LITERATURE CITED

Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). “Case Study.” The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th Edition.

Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2011. Chapter 17, pp. 301-316.

Kestrel, G. F. M. (2005). Working Hard at Play. New Horizons for Learning. http://

www.marthalakecov.org/%7Ebuilding/strategies/front_strategies/kestrel.html. Posted

March 2005, retrieved Jan. 3, 2011

Klug, C. (2011). “Dice as Dramaturge.” Tabletop: Analog Game Design. Edited by G. Costikyan

and D. Davidson, et. al.. http://www.etc.cmu.edu/etcpress/content/tabletop-analog-game-

design. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

Laster, J. (2010). At Indiana U., a Class on Game Design Has Students Playing to Win.

Chronicle for Higher Education, Wired Campus Section. http://chronicle.com/blogs/

wiredcampus/at-indiana-u-a-class-on-game-design-has-students-playing-to-win/21981.

Posted Mar. 23, 2010, retrieved Jan. 3, 2011.

Maligalig, J.P.F. (2012). “Game on, UP: Enhancing the University‟s Instruction through Game

Systems (lecture).” Presented as UP Centennial Professorial Chair Lecture, CDC-UPLB,

College, Laguna, 12 December, 2012.

Shackleton-Jones, N. (2010). “Affective Context (video).” http://www.aconventional.com/

2010/08/understanding-learning-affective.html. Retrieved 11 Oct. 2011.

Schell, J. (2010). “The Future is Beautiful (video).” Presented at TEDxUniversity of Pittsburgh,

USA. Retrieved 29 October 2010.

Zagal, J.P. (2010). Ludoliteracy: Defining, Understanding, and Supporting Games Education.

http://www.etc.cmu.edu/etcpress/content/ ludoliteracy-defining- understanding-and-

supporting-games-education. Retrieved 3 November 2012.