Gamers on Games and Gaming: Implications for Educational Game Design

Implications for Educational Game Design

Proefschrift

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische Universiteit Delft,

op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof.ir. K.C.A.M. Luyben, voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,

in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 29 oktober 2012 om 15.00 uur

door

Jan-Paul VAN STAALDUINEN

bestuurskundig ingenieur geboren te Leiden

Prof.dr. W. Veen

Copromotor: dr. L.J. Kortmann

Samenstelling promotiecommissie:

Rector magnificus, voorzitter

Prof.dr. W. Veen, Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor Dr. L.J. Kortmann, Technische Universiteit Delft, copromotor Prof.dr. G.R. Koch, Technische Universität Graz

Prof.dr. A. Krokan, Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet Prof.dr. J.F.F. Raessens, Universiteit Utrecht

Prof.dr. P.R.J. Simons, Universiteit Utrecht

Prof.dr.ir. A. Verbraeck, Technische Universiteit Delft

Prof.dr. F.M.T. Brazier, Technische Universiteit Delft, reservelid

Published and distributed by:

Jan-Paul van Staalduinen Delft University of Technology

Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management PO Box 5015 2600 GA Delft The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0)6-21217166 Email: games@jpvanstaalduinen.nl ISBN: 978-94-6186-073-6

Keywords: educational games, educational game design, gamers, gaming, learning games

Copyright © 2012 by Jan-Paul van Staalduinen

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission from the author.

All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. The use of any trademark in this text does not vest in the author any trademark ownership rights in such trademarks, nor does the use of such trademarks imply any affiliation with or endorsement of this book by such owners.

Preface

Learning is fun. I firmly believe that. However, sometimes the learning process comes packaged in a less than enjoyable, often passive educational experience. The beauty of educational games is that they can provide an interactive learning experience that engages the learner and motivates him to replay a particular situation again and again, giving the player valuable opportunities for practice and experimentation. Sometimes the player doesn’t even know that he’s learning or forgets that he’s learning, so it becomes a kind of “stealth learning.” Of course, not all educational games are that engaging or interesting, but they should strive to be. This research tries to answer the question of how to design games that have an educational impact on the player and at the same time exhibit the typical characteristics of games that make them fun, engaging, even addictive. This question is addressed by looking at what players view as important in games and combining that view with theories on education and game design.

Once my research took shape, in many ways it became somewhat of a personal journey as well. I consider myself lucky that I was able to study one of my favorite pastimes (games) in the context of one of my main professional interests (education). The borders between work and leisure often blurred, and it feels like the past four years just flew by. Of course, I couldn’t have pulled off this research all by myself, so a lot of acknowledgements are in order:

First and foremost, I want to thank the people who in some way or form participated in my research, who contributed to either the chat logs, emails, journals, or participated in one of the expert panels, and whose insights and views make up the core of my work: Aart, Dalischa, Diego, Ghislain, Gonne, Job, Kaja, Kassidy, Katrien, Kees, Klaas-Jan, Koen, Laurens, Laurent, Linda H., Linda V., Maarten, Marco, Matthijs, Michiel, Misja, Olaf, Oscar, Peter, Rens, Sanne, Suzanne, Wietse, Wijnand, Willem, and Xandra. It is impossible to overstate the importance of your contribution, because without you, I would have had nothing to work with. On top of that you’re also awesome people to be around. You made doing research fun, and I thank you for that!

Secondly, I want to profoundly thank the educational game design professional that I was able to interview for my research, and who provided me with hands-on knowledge of the game design process and invaluable insights on educational game design. Many thanks go out to Bart Hufen @ Brand New Game; Derk de Geus @ Paladin Studios; Herman Koster @ Demovides; Jaïn van Nigtevegt @ Flavour; Jeroen van Mastrigt @ JRNVM; Marcus Vlaar @ Ranj; Nikola Pavloff @ Simenco; and Richard Stitselaar @ Vertigo Games.

There are a few people that I want to thank for providing crucial assistance during my research. First of all, Alexander Verbraeck, who was my supervisor during my first year as a researcher, and who played an important role in getting my research started and on the right track. I also want to thank Evelien Tielbeek, whose abilities as a scarily fast typist ensured the success of my expert panels. In addition, I want to thank Kassidy Clark and Martijn Warnier, whose understanding of technology far exceeds my own, and whose IT and programming skills helped shave weeks of work off my research. I am very grateful for your help!

For providing me with a friendly environment and many hours of conversations during lunch, dinner, Tea@3, and Pour@4, I want to thank my colleagues in the Systems Engineering section, especially the roommates who I’ve had countless interesting discussions with in the

past four years: Kassidy Clark, Michele Fumarola, Rafael Gonzalez, Yilin Huang, and Jordan Janeiro.

I want to thank my political friends in Midden-Delfland who are always a joy to work with, most notably Fred Plooij and Gert-Jan van Dooremaal, who worked double shifts in my final year, to give me the time off I needed to fully concentrate on my thesis. Thanks for helping me in keeping my priorities straight; your efforts are very much appreciated! The same applies to my friends at the Haya van Somerenstichting who provide me with many opportunities to work on my craft as a trainer, and help me to learn more about the way people learn. It is a privilege to work with you!

A special thanks goes out to all my friends and family, and all those others who showed a warm interest in my progress, and generally supported me throughout the whole endeavor, which helped to keep my spirits up. Extra special thanks go out to my parents, who besides being the most important source of support, very graciously allowed me to make use of their hospitality whenever my office and my own apartment didn’t provide sufficient peace and quiet to work in.

Finally and most importantly, my professor and supervisor Wim Veen, and of course his family, whose hospitality always made me feel very welcome, both in Doorn and in Brittany. Your ability to think in opportunities and chances instilled a sense of optimism in my research, and your enthusiasm for the work we were doing always made for interesting, very serious, but very animated discussions. Thank you for being my supervisor for the second time in my academic career!

Jan-Paul van Staalduinen Delft, May 2012

Index

Preface ... vii

1 Research design and setup ... 1

1.1 Research focus and questions ... 2

1.2 Research strategy ... 6

1.3 Research setup ... 11

1.4 Data collection ... 15

2 Games and learning: An introduction ... 21

2.1 What constitutes a game ... 21

2.2 The relationship between games and learning ... 33

2.3 Identifying game elements that contribute to learning ... 43

2.4 From literature to analysis ... 46

3 Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories ... 47

3.1 Important terms for the open coding phase ... 48

3.2 Identifying concepts for theory-forming ... 51

3.3 An example of identifying and labeling a concept ... 54

3.4 Using concepts to develop categories ... 59

3.5 An example of the development of a category ... 61

3.6 Results of the open coding phase ... 65

4 Building a theoretical framework ... 67

4.1 A narrative for theory-forming ... 67

4.2 Construction of a theory on “a player’s perspective on games” ... 76

4.3 Insights gained from the theoretical framework ... 87

5 Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design ... 95

5.1 The design of educational games... 95

5.2 Confrontation of the theoretical framework with the literature review ... 102

5.3 Core principles for educational game design ... 114

6 A conceptual framework for educational game design ... 119

6.1 Purpose and usage of the conceptual framework ... 119

6.2 Principles of the conceptual framework ... 121

6.3 Evaluation of the conceptual framework... 131

6.4 The conceptual framework within the game design practice ... 135

6.5 Answering the research question ... 140

7 Epilogue ... 143

7.1 Results and limitations of the research ... 143

7.2 Recommendations for future research ... 145

Bibliography ... 151

List of games referenced ... 159

Appendix A: Structure and format literature review ... 163

Appendix B: Discussion panel activity summaries ... 165

Appendix C: Overview of analyzed cases ... 169

Appendix D: Overview and description of categories ... 177

Appendix E: Revised narrative of the player’s perspective on games ... 225

Summary ... 227

Samenvatting ... 231

Index of Figures

Figure 1. Time line of the data collection phase ... 11

Figure 2. Graphical overview of the research setup ... 14

Figure 3. On the borders of the classic game model (Juul, 2005) ... 25

Figure 4. The structural components of games (Björk & Holopainen, 2004) ... 29

Figure 5. Overview of the typology model (Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007) ... 32

Figure 6. The fundamental processes of learning (Illeris, 2007) ... 35

Figure 7. Learning as competence development (Illeris, 2007) ... 36

Figure 8. Kolb’s learning model (Kolb, 1984) ... 37

Figure 9. Two axes (challenges and skills) and the flow channel (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) ... 40

Figure 10. The complex learning model (Illeris, 2007) ... 42

Figure 11. Overview of the make-up of the supercategories ... 73

Figure 12. Hierarchy in the supercategories ... 75

Figure 13. Overview of the strong relationships between categories ... 76

Figure 14. Constructed theoretical framework of “a player’s perspective on games” ... 77

Figure 15. Revised theoretical framework of “a player’s perspective on games” ... 79

Figure 16. Underlying relationships for theory building block 4 ... 81

Figure 17. Three stages of the design process (Adams & Rollings, 2007) ... 98

Figure 18. Good Games 2 (Becker, 2008) ... 104

Figure 19. Bad Games 1 (Becker, 2008) ... 105

Figure 20. Input-process-outcome game model (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002) ... 113

Figure 21. Instructional effectiveness as degree of overlap, adapted from (Hays, 2005) ... 113

Figure 22. Core principles for educational game design ... 115

Figure 23. A conceptual framework for educational game design ... 120

Figure 24. The core principle of “Player autonomy” ... 122

Figure 25. The core principle of “Player incentive” ... 123

Figure 26. The core principle of “Social interaction” ... 125

Figure 27. The core principle of “Game structure” ... 126

Figure 28. The core principle of “Learning content” ... 128

Figure 29. The core principle of “Challenges” ... 130

Index of Tables

Table 1. Digital versus non-digital games (Becker, 2008) ... 26

Table 2. Relationships among learning processes, types of knowledge and change processes (Dieleman & Huisingh, 2006) ... 38

Table 3. Essential game characteristics for learning (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002) ... 39

Table 4. Game elements that contribute to learning, adapted from (Staalduinen, 2011) ... 43

Table 5. Example of a case used in the open coding phase ... 51

Table 6. Example of how a concept was identified ... 54

Table 7. Example of how an aggregated concept was identified ... 55

Table 8. Example of a memo written in the open coding phase ... 58

Table 9. Initial ‘sketch’ of the category ‘Accessibility’ ... 61

Table 10. Changelog for the category ‘Accessibility’ ... 62

Table 11. Category keywords for the category ‘Accessibility’ ... 62

Table 12. Attached (aggregated) concepts for the category ‘Accessibility’ ... 63

Table 13. Category properties for the category ‘Accessibility’ ... 63

Table 14. Category dimensions for the category ‘Accessibility’ ... 64

Table 15. Related categories for the category ‘Accessibility’ ... 65

First chapter

1 Research design and setup

Research design and setup

In our research, we try to construct a design approach for educational games that have both an educational impact, and also exhibit the typical characteristics of entertainment games. The purpose of our research is to devise a way of creating games, from which players learn by playing, and which are entertaining at the same time. We argue that such games would lead to motivated and engaged players, and that motivation and engagement foster learning, leading to higher learning efficacy in games. To this end, this study aims at defining critical aspects of entertainment games, that cause gamers to play and replay the game, that engage them, and that motivate them to continue playing, and then devising how these aspects can be

incorporated in the design of educational games. In order to identify these aspects, we use the grounded theory methodology to construct a theoretical framework of “a player’s perspective on games.” This theoretical framework can be used to explain which aspects of games matter from the perspective of players; i.e. which aspects players consider discriminating criteria for a game they want to play and keep playing. We then confront this theoretical framework with existing theories on both game design and educational game design, to develop ideas on how our theoretical framework could contribute to new approaches in educational game design. With the outcomes of this confrontation, we develop a conceptual framework for educational game design, which is then discussed with professionals in the fields of game design and educational game design. These discussions lead to final adjustments to the conceptual framework for educational game design.

In this chapter we explain the design and setup of our research. We describe the theoretical, philosophical and methodological underpinnings of our research, and explain its different operational phases and activities. We also explain the relationship between each research phase and the other chapters in this dissertation. Where individual chapters delve deeper into the particulars of specific research phases, this chapter contains the complete structure and general overview of our research.

We first discuss the research context, the associated problem that the research addresses, the research questions and the boundaries of our research. We then explain our research strategy, and the philosophy, methodology and scientific rigor that the strategy incorporates. Next, we describe the research setup and its phases of data analysis, the construction of a theoretical framework, the development of a conceptual framework, and the revision of that conceptual framework. Finally, we explain how data for our research was collected, processed and structured.

1.1

Research focus and questions

In this paragraph we introduce the general context of our research by providing an overview of the use of games in education. We then formulate the problem statement for our research, and define the research question and sub questions. We also explain the boundaries of our research.

1.1.1 Problem statement

The use of games in education can be seen as early as the 18th century where the military used ‘war games’ for training purposes (Avedon & Sutton-Smith, 1971; Shubik, 1975a, 1975b). In the 20th century educational games gained a wider acceptance through the use of games in teaching business economics (Duke, 1974; Teach, 2007). Since the late 1950s, the use of simulations is common in both business and medical education, and games and simulations are found in language and science education and corporate training (Gredler, 2004). More recently games have been used to teach about policy development and analysis (Duke & Geurts, 2004; Mayer, 2008). As advances in computer technology have drastically increased the possibilities for digital games, research focus in the past decades has shifted from board games (‘analogue games’) to computer games, i.e. ‘digital games’ (Squire, 2004; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Becker, 2008).

In the past two decades, there has been a steadily increasing interest in the use of games for educational purposes (Becker, 2008; Squire, 2004; Wilson et al., 2009). This has led to an increased design, use and study of educational games; games where the players learn through playing. Although evidence for the learning effectiveness of games has been slow to gather (Bredemeier & Greenblat, 1981; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Randel, Morris, Wetzel, & Whitehill, 1992; Somers & Holt, 1993; Squire, 2003), Kirrimuir & McFarlane (2003) cite two reasons that a growing number of games is being developed for the use in education: “ (1) The desire to harness the motivational power of games in order to ‘making learning fun’. (2) A belief that ‘learning through doing’ in games such as simulations offers a powerful learning tool (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2003, p. 4).”

There is an extensive and growing body of literature in the area of games and education. Recent reviews of the literature and extensive research reports (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006; Freitas, 2006; Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2002, 2003; Squire, 2003), as well as several dissertations (Squire, 2004; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Becker, 2008), provide an overview of using both traditional and digital games in formal educational contexts. We feel it is important to reiterate some core ideas, issues and arguments presented in those research reports.

There is a strong interest in the motivational power of games. Kirriemuir & McFarlane (2003) conclude that educators have a particular interest in games, because of their great motivational power. There seem to be two schools of thought here. One group of educators pursues gaming as an educational tool, to ‘make learning fun’ (which, as Kirriemuir & McFarlane remark, assumes that children do not enjoy learning, for which there is much contradictory evidence). The other group focuses on the immersive learning experience that gaming provides (Freitas, 2006), and its ability to induce ‘flow’, a psychological concept coined by Csikszentmihalyi (1975). Freitas (2006) notes that the educational use of (commercial) games in some eyes still clashes with the perception that games are associated with violence and aggression, a notion that has only started changing in the past decade. Squire (2003) agrees with this observation.

Yet the actual educational application of games remains limited. Squire (2003) concludes that computer games have largely been ignored by educators, stating that the great technological

1

developments in gaming are still to be incorporated into learning environments. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Kirriemuir & McFarlane (2003) argue that educators see ‘learning through doing’ in games as a powerful learning tool. Squire (2004) and Freitas (2006) seem to be in agreement that simulations have been used extensively for professional and vocational education, but that the acceptance of games as an educational tool has been slow, “due their association with violence and leisure time activities (Freitas, 2006, p. 5).” Based on his literature review, Squire (2004) notes a difficulty for learners in making connections between the game system and the real-life system the game is intended to represent.

We argue the current research focus seems to be on the usage of off-the-shelf commercial (entertainment) games in the classroom. Kirriemuir & McFarlane (2002) report that within scientific research the most used games for educational purposes are commercial simulation games, such as RollerCoaster Tycoon (Hasbro Interactive, 1999) and Sim City (Maxis, 1989). In more recent studies, Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) experimented with using Europa Universalis II (Strategy First, 2001) to teach history, and Squire (2004) employed Civilization III (Infogrames, 2001) for similar purposes. Both Kirriemuir & McFarlane (2002) and Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) conclude that using off-the-shelf commercial games creates some difficulties in linking actual game content and intended learning goals, making most entertainment games unsuitable for learning purposes, and, along with Freitas (2006), argue that more support material for teachers is necessary to offset this. As even the most accurate simulation games are still abstract representations of reality, there is always the risk of “compromises between complexity and playability resulting in the players / school children receiving inaccurate and simplistic ideas of how particular scenarios realistically operate (Kirriemuir & McFarlane 2002, p. 9).” As off-the-shelf commercial games were not specifically designed to be used in educational settings, Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) argues that we can look at teaching with these games at three levels, each level having its own problems:

1. No appreciation. If players do not have the necessary subject knowledge, it is difficult for them to appreciate the elements in the game and the experience of playing the game, in relation the game’s subject matter. This leads to a diminished learning experience. 2. Lack of exploration. Players have a certain inherent distrust of the value of playing the

game, due to games only being an abstract representation of reality. This inhibits players’ inclination to explore, even where they do recognize and appreciate the elements in the game that are relevant to the subject.

3. No linking. Without a teacher to point out the links between the game experience and subject reality, and making the players aware of them, the educational impact of playing the game remains limited.

In addition, most so-called edutainment has failed to realize expectations. Becker argues that there is a general pattern in the introduction of new educational media: “optimism followed by ‘rampant’ appropriation with little consideration for that media's distinguishing characteristics (Becker, 2008, p. 51):”

“Instructional films peaked and crashed as educational technology at least partly because of some of the same issues that plagued television a generation later, and which now appear to be affecting digital games. There was widespread skepticism in combining entertainment, commercialism, and education, and film was considered ‘low culture’ and insufficiently dignified for formal education (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). […] Educational television has undergone several renaissances where revival has usually been brought about through legislation. There were numerous educational programs available throughout the 1970's; they all but disappeared in the 1980's and have returned again largely supported by specialty channels available by subscription. Games are once again experiencing a re-birth as learning technologies, but this time it seems to be paralleling a

far more widespread interest in the use of games and game technology (Becker, 2008, p.p. 51-52).”

“One example of the problem related to learning versus playing is when the game’s goals and system work against the learning goals. Students will often tend to focus on achieving the game goals while neglecting the learning part. This is a risk in the educational use of commercial video games, where the game goals are often not educationally relevant. A game like Age of Empires may have historically relevant settings and narratives, but the main focus is on mastering resource management to beat the opponent, which attracts most of the student’s attention while playing. The problem is not limited to the educational use of video games, it can also be found in the behaviorist edutainment titles that

dominate the market. For example, when a student plays Math Blaster, an all-time classic, the game’s goals and system are about being fast and about shooting down asteroids (that then release questions on algebra). Of course, the student learns algebra, but swiftness and shooting skills take up much space and sometimes work against really thinking about the algebra (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006, p. 202).”

Edutainment, an amalgamation of “education” and “entertainment” (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006), is the term often used to describe games with a specific educational purpose, but with a design disconnect between education and entertainment, often resulting in both a stunted learning experience and a less than enjoyable gameplay experience (Martens, et al., 2004; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). Kirriemuir & McFarlane (2003) conclude that most edutainment games have failed to realize expectations, and provide four common problems in edutainment games:

• The edutainment game is too simplistic compared to entertainment games.

• The edutainment game contains too many repetitive in-game tasks, which causes players to quickly become bored and to view the game as ‘work’.

• In-game tasks in the edutainment game are poorly designed and do not support

progressive understanding, usually due to a limited range of possible activities in the game (e.g. concentrating on one particular skill).

• The edutainment game presents itself too much as being educational, which gives the player the feeling that he is being coerced into ‘learning’. This creates player resistance and aversion.

Yet developing a game for educational purposes, although similar to developing a game for recreational purposes, brings with it its own challenges. Although games and game design in general have been studied extensively (e.g. Gee (2003), Juul (2005), Salen & Zimmerman (2004)), as has been learning (e.g. Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, (1956), Piaget (1955), Vygotsky (1978)), insights into which specific characteristics of games contribute to learning currently are limited (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Kebritchi & Hirumi, 2008; Wilson, et al., 2009). Gredler (1996) argues that there is only a limited understanding of the relationship between educational games and disciplinary theories of learning and knowing. This prohibits a structured implementation of instructional design and limits control of a game’s desired learning outcomes, in the game design (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). In practice this has led to educational games either being designed with a focus on pedagogy, leading to games that are educational, but not engaging, or educational games being designed with a focus on entertainment, leading to engaging and immersive games, that lack in educational impact (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2003; Martens, Gulikers, & Bastiaens, 2004). From the literature it can be concluded that pedagogy and game design currently appear to be two separated worlds. As a result, a growing body of literature emphasizes the importance of applying instructional strategies and theories to design educational games (Amory, 2006; Dickey, 2005, 2006b; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006; Freitas, 2006; Kebritchi & Hirumi, 2008; Kiili, 2005a; Quinn, 1994; Squire, 2004). This seems to be a general problem with regards to both level of education and type of game: Egenfeldt-Nielsen’s and Squire’s work focuses on secondary education, whereas

Amory and Kiili are rooted in higher education; and while authors studied different kinds of games, they reached similar conclusions about the design of games for educational purposes.

In conclusion, we argue that games are seen as a valid educational tool with strong

motivational aspects, but that experiments with entertainment and edutainment games have not yet yielded satisfactory results with regards to educational impact and leveraging the typical characteristics of entertainment games. In the past years numerous educational games have been designed, but although best practices have come forth from the design processes

(Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2003; Quinn, 2005; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004), Freitas (2006) argues that further work is necessary to bring closer together the communities of game development and education. From interviews with professional (educational) game designers, we have gathered that specifically designed educational games have been used successfully to help players learn knowledge, skills and attitudes, but that these are often custom designs, and no general construct or design method exists for creating educational games. This has led us to the following problem statement for our research:

Currently no game design approach exists that combines pedagogical theory and game design theory, in order to design games that have an educational impact on the player and also exhibit the motivational characteristics of entertainment games.

1.1.2 Research question

The aim of our research was to find a way of combining insights into the concept of learning with the entertainment qualities of games, in order to construct a design approach for games both having an educational impact and exhibiting the typical characteristics of entertainment games. With regards to the design of educational games, it seems that on one side of the debate is the school of thought that approaches educational games from a pedagogical perspective, and on the other side of the debate is the school of thought that approaches them from an entertainment perspective. Then there are those who argue for a synthesis of both approaches, a merged perspective so to speak. Both categories of research use theories as underpinning constructs, which are valuable from a theoretical point of view. However, what is lacking in the debate is the gamer’s perspective; the end-user whose values and attitudes we assume are extremely relevant to know. So the one perspective that seems to have been left out in this debate, is that of the learner in his role of player. A way of bridging the gap between pedagogy and game design is to gain insight into the player’s perspective on games, and see how his opinions about games relate and can be related to learning, and how this helps in constructing educational games that on the one hand have a learning impact, and on the other hand, as a game succeed at immersing and engaging the player. This has led us to our main research question:

How do players look at, deal with, and experience games, and how can we use this player’s perspective to combine pedagogy and game design into a merged approach for educational game design?

Finding an answer to this question first required us to look at important aspects of games and learning. We first needed to gain an understanding of ‘learning’ as a concept. We needed this understanding in order to position learning within the context of playing games, and also to find the inherent pedagogical characteristics of games. To gain insight into the player’s perspective on games, we needed to focus on players themselves; their thoughts about games, discussions that they have about games, their assumptions about and experiences with games, and the aspects they consider important when playing games. We argue that, once we had an understanding of the player’s perspective on games, and the inherent pedagogical and motivational aspects of games, we could derive design principles for educational games, that would lead to games that both have an educational impact and are fun to play. A framework

could help us in structuring such design principles, and would improve their usability for game designers. This led us to the following sub questions, which together with the main research question are answered at the end of Chapters 4, 5 and 6:

1. What learning theories are relevant for games and game design?

2. What pedagogical aspects can be found in entertainment games, and which game characteristics contribute to learning?

3. What theory on “a player’s perspective on games” can we distill from interactions, conversations, and discussions with and between experienced gamers?

4. What design principles for educational games can we derive from the confrontation of “a player’s perspective on games” with the pedagogical aspects of games and the game characteristics that contribute to learning?

5. What conceptual framework for educational design can we create that incorporates those design principles in order to facilitate the design of educational games?

For our research, the role of the learner is critical in this “dialogue” between game design and learning. In our study of the design of educational games, we equated the learner with the player, as the player learns by playing an educational game. This meant that in our thesis, wherever we use the word ‘learner’ the reader can substitute this for the word ‘player’, and vice versa.

As games can be used outside of the classroom, we focused on learning in general, and not just within a formal educational (curriculum) setting. Paragraph 2.2 addresses our view on, and definition of learning. We assumed that playing games is a possible method of learning, as has been shown by numerous researchers. We did not intend to study the learning process of games; that is the area of educational psychology. We also did not wish to contribute to the ongoing debate (Sitzmann, 2011; Tennyson & Jorczak, 2008) whether educational games as a learning method lead to higher learner retention rates than other methods of learning (e.g. learning by teaching, lectures, case studies). What was important for our research, is that playing games is a valid learning method.

Regarding the type of skills that can be learned, in our research we focused on the acquisition of cognitive skills (Bloom, et al., 1956). Although evidence has been presented that reflex-based games can be used to practice hand-eye coordination (and similar games are currently used to train surgeons), this was not the focus of our research. It was quite possible for our research outcomes to be applicable to the domains of psycho-motor and affective skills, but we did not specifically research these domains and did not make any claims regarding these domains based on our research.

1.2

Research strategy

In this paragraph we describe our research strategy, which is composed of our research philosophy and our research methodology. The research philosophy describes the way we frame our view on reality and knowledge, which guides us in choosing appropriate methods for conducting meaningful research with valid results. The research methodology describes the set of methods we employ in order to carry out our research; the ways in which data is gathered, analyzed, and how results are distilled from the analysis.

1.2.1 Research philosophy and methodology

A research philosophy is built on an ontological approach (the way the nature of reality is viewed), and a theory of knowledge acquisition (epistemology), i.e. how we come to know (Flood, 1990). Epistemology is strongly related to the practical approach to knowledge

acquisition (i.e. methodology); epistemology involves the philosophy of how we come to know the world and methodology involves the practice of getting to know the world.

The central activity of our research was to gain insight into a player’s perspective on games; we aimed to construct a theory on a player’s perspective on games. This means that our research is aimed at theory building, not the testing of existing theories. This has led us to frame our research as both inductive and explorative. In inductive reasoning, research begins with specific observations and measures, the detection of patterns and regularities, the formulation of tentative hypotheses that can be explored, and finally the development of a general conclusion or theory. As our research aimed to distill a player’s perspective on games from interactions, conversations, and discussions with and between experienced gamers, we adopted a realist ontology. The realist ontology holds that a reality exists outside of ourselves, and that reality therefore can be agreed upon by independent observers. With regards to observing social reality, a “less strong realist might say that social reality is evidently there, it is concrete, but some genuine difficulties are encountered when attempting to get to grips with it […] (Flood, 1990, p. 84).” This realist position fits within the post-positivist epistemological paradigm, which holds that facts are fluid and elusive, forcing us to only focus on our observational claims. This means that the validity of knowledge of social reality is of low resolution, and increasing validity should be a main concern for our research methodology. “The post-positivist paradigm

acknowledges that reality is imperfectly apprehensible and that the research process requires critical examination (Hall & Callery, 2001, p. 262).”

Our research question, in combination with our research philosophy led us to the research methodology, which is the practical approach for knowledge acquisition. Within our

methodology we discerned between two subsets of methods. The first subset is the methods we used for data collection, including literature review, personal conversations, journal logs, discussion panels, individual discussions, and interviews, which we describe in Paragraph 1.4. The second subset is the method we used for data analysis, which we describe in Paragraph 1.2.2. As our research focused on the player’s perspective on games; i.e. how players look at, deal with, and experience games, we argue that a qualitative method was at its place in our research. Within qualitative research, many analytical methods are available, for example content analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis, and grounded theory. What most of these methods arguably have in common, is that they do not set out to test a particular

hypothesis, but that comparative, incremental interpretation of qualitative data is used to generate conclusions and theories, which is in line with the inductive and explorative nature of our research. Our aim is to develop a theoretical framework that encompasses “a player’s perspective on games.” This means that a qualitative method applicable for our research, should be capable of developing a theory, based on what transpires when experienced gamers discuss or play games. In order to enhance ‘triangulation of evidence’ (Pandit, 1996), this methodology should also allow the handling of a broad spectrum of data; from ‘active’ data (i.e. a gamer’s expressed thoughts are used as data), to ‘passive’ data (i.e. observations of a gamer’s actions and activities are used as data).

With regards to available qualitative research methods, we found the grounded theory method to have an optimal fit with our research approach. Other methods that we considered, but which fitted less within our research approach, were hermeneutics, content analysis, phenomenology, and interpretative phenomenological analysis:

• While hermeneutics aims for interpreting and understanding of events, its main focus is on analyzing the meanings of these events to participants (Wallace, Ross, & Davies, 2003). As our aim was to develop a theory, we argue that just interpretation and understanding are not enough for developing theories, causing us to favor methods that incorporate theory construction as part of the method.

• Content analysis or textual analysis is “any technique for making inferences by objectively and systematically identifying specified characteristics of messages (Holsti, 1969, p. 14),” meaning as a method, it mainly focuses on communication between participants, and the communication’s antecedents, characteristics, and effects (Holsti, 1969). Although

communication between participants would most likely be a source of data in our research, we did not have an exclusive interest in communication; we were interested in which discriminating criteria players use when selecting which game to play. In which ways players express or display these criteria, was less relevant for our research, causing us to favor methods that focus less on one aspect of human interaction (i.e. communication).

• Another well-known qualitative method, phenomenology, “aims to get ‘to the things themselves’ through creating written descriptions of personal experience as the source of all claims to knowledge (Conklin, 2007, p. 276).” We argue that, as we were interested in the views of many participants, not just personal observations by the researcher, this method fitted less within our research approach.

• The aim of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) is to offer insights into how a given person, in a given context, makes sense of a given phenomenon (Smith, 2007). We argue that, as we did not aim to exclusively research experiences by players, other forms of data that represent the particular phenomenon (i.e. gamers on games and gaming) are useful within our research as well. This means, we were looking for a methodology which allows for analyzing a broad spectrum of qualitative data.

Based on these considerations, we chose grounded theory for our main method, as “[…] it is an inductive, emergent method that is located mainly in post positivism […] (Urquhart, 2001, p. 130),” which fitted within the onto-epistemological approach we chose for our research, and which also allowed us to develop a theoretical framework, based on available data. We explain the basic principles of grounded theory in the next paragraph.

1.2.2 Basic principles of grounded theory

Grounded theory is an inductive method for data analysis, that “[…] is best regarded as a general theory of scientific method concerned with the detection and explanation of social phenomena (Haig, 1995, p. 2).” Grounded theory uses a coding process in which the researcher analyzes data sources in order to discover, abstract and describe ideas or

phenomena that can be found in the data. These observations are called ‘codes’, and are then used to form categories, which are sets of concepts that together describe phenomena (Strauss & Corbin, 1998); i.e. central ideas that emerge from the data. These categories are then further interrelated and integrated, in order to create a theoretical framework, which is the end result of this process. This theoretical framework is a set of relational statements which explain “what is going on;” i.e. in our case the phenomena with regards to our research subject: the player’s perspective on games.

“In this method, the analyst initially codes the data (open coding) – word by word, segment by segment – and gives temporary labels (codes) to particular phenomena. The analyst determines whether codes generated through one data source also appear elsewhere and elaborates their properties. Related codes that have endured are then densified into more enduring and analytically ambitious “categories,” and these are ultimately integrated into a theoretical analysis of the substantive area. Thus a “grounded theory” of a particular phenomenon of concern is composed of the analytic codes and categories generated in the analysis that have been explicitly integrated to form a theory of the substantive area that is the focus of the research project – a “substantive theory” (Clarke, 2003, p. 557).” Urquhart (2001) cites Dey (1999) to give a workable definition of grounded theory:

1. “The aim of grounded theory is to generate or discover a theory.

3. Theory focuses on how individuals interact in relation to the phenomenon under study. 4. Theory asserts a plausible relation between concepts and sets of concepts.

5. Theory is derived from data acquired through fieldwork interviews, observations and documents.

6. Data analysis is systematic and begins as soon as data is available. 7. Data analysis proceeds through identifying categories and connecting them. 8. Further data collection (or sampling) is based on emerging concepts.

9. These concepts are developed through constant comparison with additional data. 10. Data collection can stop when no new conceptualizations emerge.

11. Data analysis proceeds from ‘open’ coding (identifying categories, properties and

dimensions) through ‘axial’ coding (examining conditions, strategies and consequences) to ‘selective’ coding around an emerging storyline.

12. The resulting theory can be reported in a narrative framework or as a set of propositions (Dey, 1999, p.p. 1-2).”

Though there are several schools of thought on grounded theory, most notably those of Strauss and Glaser (Urquhart, 2001), they share some basic principles. Urquhart (2001) argues that the idea of constant comparison is the most important characteristic of the grounded theory method. “Using constant comparison method gets the analyst to the desired ‘conceptual power’, with ease and joy. Categories emerge upon comparison and properties emerge upon more comparison. And that is all there is to it (Glaser, 1992, p. 43).” Urquhart considers constant comparison a critical guideline for understanding the analysis process as used by grounded theory. “Put simply, constant comparison is the process of constantly comparing instances of data that you have labeled as a particular category with other instances of data, to see if these categories fit and are workable (Urquhart, 2001, p. 109).” Strauss & Corbin (1998) state that if the categories fit and are workable, and when no new properties and dimensions, or

relationships between categories emerge from the data, ‘theoretical saturation’ has been reached.

The second shared basic principle is that of setting aside theoretical ideas, which implies that a researcher who uses grounded theory temporarily sets aside any existing knowledge of related or adjacent theories, while applying the grounded theory method (Urquhart, 2001). Although a theory that is the result of the grounded theory method can later be compared or confronted with existing theories, during the application of the method the researcher should only use the data available to him while constructing a theory. Grounded theory is an inductive method, and setting aside theoretical ideas helps in guaranteeing the inductiveness of the method, and prevents the data analysis phase from being affected by existing ideas from the literature. The practice of confronting the developed theory with existing theories is called ‘theoretical sensitivity’. Glaser (1992) emphasizes the importance of confronting a developed theory with existing theory, in order to strengthen the internal validity of the developed theory, but only after the theory has been developed.

Urquhart (2001) argues that the researcher should clearly demonstrate a chain of analysis, even if the actual analysis process was iterative in practice. When applying the grounded theory method, we used the following chain of analysis, i.e. research phasing, which is explained more in-depth in Paragraph 1.3.2 and Chapters 3 and 4:

1. We started out with collecting data about the phenomenon to be studied. For data collection, we used multiple collection methods in order to strengthen the constructed theory by using triangulation of evidence, which Pandit (1996) argues enhances internal validity. Data was then sorted into case studies, which facilitated its analysis.

2. Next, we started the open coding process, which constitutes a line by line analysis of the data. We analyzed the data sources, labeling ideas and forming abstract codes from them. Phenomena and concepts we encountered, were described on a sentence level and

collected as “codes.” For each case a research memo was written in which codes for that case, and general observations and ideas about the phenomenon studied, were noted. 3. After all the cases had been coded, we entered the axial coding phase, in which we

grouped and associated those codes / concepts, based on their inherent properties. Through this process, categories were formed. These categories could also be related to each other, due to the categories sharing associated concepts with other categories. Per category, the associated phenomena (i.e. codes) were then used to describe the properties (i.e. characteristics) and dimensions (i.e. range, bandwidth) of those categories.

4. Finally, in the selective coding phase, categories were interrelated based on underlying and overlapping phenomena. Through the proposed relationships between the categories, a theoretical framework on the phenomenon studied, could be developed.

With regards to rigor and validity, Haig (1995) argues that: “Grounded theory is regarded by Glaser and Strauss as a general theory of scientific method concerned with the generation, elaboration, and validation of social science theory. For them, grounded theory research should meet the accepted canons for doing good science (consistency, reproducibility, generalizability, etc.), although these methodological notions are not to be understood in a positivist sense (Haig, 1995, p. 1).” Both Glaser (1992) and Strauss (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) provide criteria for judging the rigor of a grounded theory study.

“Glaser’s (1978; 1992) criteria for judging the rigor of a grounded theory study include fit, work, relevance, modifiability, parsimony, and scope. Fit refers to the relationship of the core category to the salient social problem and its ability to account for most of the

variation in behavior used to address the problem (Glaser, 1978). Relevance and work are defined as the relevance of the core category to the data and the ability of the core category to work the other concepts and their properties so that most of them are related to the core category. A core category that fits, is relevant, and works not only is subject to qualification and modification but also integrates a theory so that it is dense and saturated with relationships (Glaser, 1978). Accounting for as much variation in the data with as few concepts as possible maximizes parsimony and scope (Glaser, 1978).

Strauss & Corbin’s (1998) criteria for judging rigor include plausibility, reproducibility, generalizability, concept generation, systematic conceptual relationships, density, variation, and the presence of process and broader conditions. Plausibility is defined as the degree to which the research process and theoretical formulations fit reality, provide understanding, and are useful. Reproducibility implies that, given the same theoretical perspective and rules for data gathering and analysis and a similar set of conditions, an investigator should be able to develop a similar theoretical explanation about a given phenomenon (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Generalizability refers to systematic and

widespread theoretical sampling that builds in conditions and variations so that precision and predictive ability will be greater. Concept generation and relationships are evaluated in terms of technical versus commonsense meanings and evidence of systematic linkages (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Conceptual density refers to the presence of categories such as conditions, context, and consequences that are dimensionalized through properties. Variation is defined as the range of variation in categories and the specificity with which variations are spelled out (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Rigorous studies will include process and structural conditions among the developed categories (Hall & Callery, 2001, p.p. 259-260).”

Whereas Glaser’s criteria mainly focus on the constructed theory, i.e. the outcomes of the study, Strauss’s criteria also incorporate the theory’s development process and systemic aspects of the constructed theory. In our research we chose to use the criteria by Glaser, as we argue that they are more applicable to our research. Within the epistemological post-positivist

paradigm, the critical examination of the research process is necessary to guarantee validity. With regards to a rigorous process, in our research we strongly adhered to the chain of analysis as described above, and used an extensive and exhaustive description of the research process to emphasize our adherence to the chain of analysis. This approach built rigor in the process and made judging the rigor of the process’s outcomes the main concern. Also, for validation purposes, as described in Paragraph 1.3.4, we discussed the results of our study with others, meaning the judging criteria needed to be easily understandable and communicable. This also led us to prefer the criteria by Glaser, as we feel these were easier to communicate with participants that were unfamiliar with grounded theory, and because they required less knowledge of the overall grounded theory process underlying the constructed theory.

1.3

Research setup

In this paragraph we describe the setup and design of our research. In our research we discern eight research phases, which are discussed below. For each research phase we explain the general approach of the research phase and then refer to the individual paragraphs or chapters where the respective research phases and their results are described in more detail. The graphical overview of our research setup can be found in Figure 2.

1.3.1 Data collection

We started our research with the collection of research data. In this research phase we distinguish between two types of research data: existing research in the form of scientific literature which we use in a literature review, and qualitative data sources in the form of emails, chat logs, and journals that are structured into the cases we use for data analysis.

The collected scientific literature and the accompanying literature review served three

purposes: (1) to establish the theoretical context within which our research would take place by defining our understanding of ‘games’ and ‘learning’; (2) to provide us with important

terminology that we needed to classify our cases; and (3) to provide us with the scientific basis we needed to reflect on our findings from the data analysis phase. The literature review served as the basis for Chapter 2 and Paragraph 4.3, and Chapter 5.

Figure 1. Time line of the data collection phase

The qualitative data sources that we structured into cases comprised three types of data source that were gathered in four stages, as illustrated in Figure 1:

• Personal conversations with gamers, in the form of emails and chat logs, that the

researcher had with 23 individuals, over the course of seven years: from September 2003 to September 2010.

• Journal logs of gamer sessions the researcher kept in the period of September 2010 to November 2010, logging the events of eight Sunday afternoons in which a group of 11 people in varying arrangements played games.

• A series of discussion panels with expert gamers (men), in which a group of 12 men discussed and played games, with the researcher acting as the discussion moderator. The panels were organized in the period of November 2010 to February 2011.

• A series of discussion panels with expert gamers (women), in which a group of seven women discussed and played games, with the researcher acting as the discussion moderator. Due to practical considerations, these panels were held in a later stage in our research. The panels were organized in the period of November 2011 to February 2012.

The data collection phase of our research is covered in more detail in Paragraph 1.4.

1.3.2 Data analysis

In the second research phase we analyzed the available cases from the data collection phase. For analyzing the data we used the grounded theory method, as discussed in Paragraph 1.2.2, to look for the player’s perspective on games, as discussed in Paragraph 1.1.2.

In the first step of applying the grounded theory method, the open coding phase, we analyzed the data sources in the cases with the purpose of identifying and labeling concepts. These concepts are abstract representations of an event or interaction. For each analyzed case, we wrote a memo that summarized the analysis findings.

The found concepts and other ideas and themes were then used to form categories. Categories are collections of concepts that together describe central ideas that emerge from the data. Categories are formed by grouping concepts along shared themes, and using the associated concepts to describe the properties and dimensions of those categories.

The data analysis phase of our research is discussed in Chapter 3. The complete list of

processed cases can be found in Appendix C. The full descriptions of the developed categories can be found in Appendix D.

1.3.3 Construction of a theoretical framework

In the third step of our research we moved from the open coding phase into the axial coding and selective coding phases of the grounded theory method. In these phases we took the categories that we found in the data analysis research phase, and linked these categories to each other based the underlying concepts that they had in common. Then we integrated the associated categories with each other, thereby creating aggregated categories that we call ‘supercategories’. We did this through the use of a technique called ‘the narrative’.

We then introduced hierarchy and structure in these supercategories, in order to develop a theoretical framework. This theoretical framework of “a player’s perspective on games” is the end result of our application of the grounded theory method. This theoretical framework consists of a set of relational statements which explain “what is going on;” i.e. which aspects players consider discriminating criteria for a game they want to play and keep playing. The construction of a theoretical framework is discussed in Chapter 4.

1.3.4 Testing the soundness of the theoretical framework

To test the theoretical soundness of the framework developed in the previous research phase, we held discussions with seven individual expert gamers that had participated either in the personal conversations or discussion panels. These discussions were used to reflect on the soundness of the theoretical framework, by presenting the narrative and explaining the

framework to the interviewees, and then discussing the contents of it: “Another way to validate is to actually tell the story to respondents or ask them to read it and then request that they comment on how well it seems to fit their cases (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 159).” These discussions were held in March of 2012.

Testing the soundness of the theoretical framework is discussed in Paragraph 4.2.1. The data collection through the discussion panels and interviews is covered in more detail in Paragraph 1.4. The revised narrative of the player’s perspective can be found in Appendix E.

1.3.5 Confrontation of the theoretical framework with the literature review The sets of relational statements that could be found in the theoretical framework tell us something about the nature of the interplay between important characteristics of games, and the behavior and motivation of gamers. These statements have implications for educational game design, in the sense that a player’s perspective on games applies to educational games as well. In order to go from a theoretical framework on “a player’s perspective on games,” to a conceptual framework for educational game design, in this research phase we confronted the theoretical framework with the literature review. We did this in two steps: first we used our literature review to reflect on the insights gained from developing the theoretical framework. Next, we confronted the theoretical framework with existing theories on both game design and educational game design, in order to create an overview of the characteristics of existing approaches in educational design, and to develop ideas on how our theoretical framework could contribute to new approaches in educational game design.

The reflection on insights gained from the theoretical framework with the literature on games and learning is discussed in Paragraph 4.3. The confrontation of the theoretical framework with the literature on game design is discussed in Chapter 5.

1.3.6 Development of a conceptual framework

We developed a conceptual framework for educational game design, based on the earlier research phases. This conceptual framework contains guidelines and rules of thumb for educational game design, and emphasizes those design areas that are relevant for educational games. These guidelines and suggestions arose from the confrontation of the literature review with the theoretical framework of “a player’s perspective on games” that we had developed through our grounded theory study.

The conceptual framework for educational game design was developed through a series of iterative brainstorm sessions and writing sessions, where the insights from our research were combined with existing theory on games, learning and (educational) game design. The development of a conceptual framework is discussed in Chapter 5. The conceptual framework and its usage are discussed in Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2.

1.3.7 Evaluation of the conceptual framework

To test the applicability of the conceptual framework interviews were held with eight

experienced professionals in the fields of game design and educational game design. These interviews focused on the practice of game design and the way in which the conceptual framework for educational game design could be used within that practice. The results of the interviews and the input from the interviewees were then used to evaluate our conceptual framework for educational game design. The evaluation of the conceptual framework is discussed in Paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4. The data collection through the interviews is covered in more detail in Paragraph 1.4.

1.3.8 Reflections and conclusions

Finally, we reflected on the outcomes of our research, which insights those outcomes had led to, and which conclusions could be drawn based on those outcomes. We also mapped the possibilities for future research on the subject of a player’s perspective on (educational) game design, coming up with suggestions for new lines of research. The reflections on and

conclusions of our research are discussed in Paragraph 6.5 and Chapter 7.

1.4

Data collection

The ways in which data for our research were collected, is described in this paragraph. From which research phase the data set originated, and in which research phase it was used, can be found in Paragraph 1.3 and Figure 2. Per data set we will explain which collection method was employed, what the results of collecting the data were, and how the data was formatted for use in our research.

1.4.1 Literature review

For the literature review we used the taxonomy as presented by Cooper (1985), which can be found in Appendix A. The focus, or central interests of the review were: theories on the educational value of games, models of educational elements in games, and educational analyses of (commercial) games. The goal of the literature review was to create an understanding of the context for our research, and to identify important terminology for our research. The main aim of the review was to cover literature on educational games and (educational) game design, within respect to our literature keywords and search boundaries. The literature review was conducted in October, 2009.

Several sources were used for the literature search. First of all, a list of relevant scientific journals, from both the gaming-simulation and the educational disciplines. Although ideally these journals were ISI-rated, we recognize that games research has really taken off in the last decade, resulting in numerous journals that have not existed long enough to be ISI-rated. Excluding these journals would most likely put serious limitations on our literature review. For this reason we included journals in our review that are younger than ten years old, as long as they are peer-reviewed. As our research takes place on the intersection of game design and education, journals used for our literature review have included the following keywords in their title: education (educational), higher education, game(s) (gaming), learning, computer,

technology, and multi-media. The journals that we used for our literature review can be found in Appendix A.

The second source for our literature review were (scientific) search engines and other (online) archival databases. These search engines were also used to find further material by authors that describe specific sets of elements in games. The search engines that we used for our literature review can be found in Appendix A. Keywords that were used in the literature search are: game attributes, learning, learning outcomes, pedagogical issues, educational

effectiveness, educational goals, game elements, game properties, games and learning, learning principles, game-based learning, serious games, educational games, instructional games, and edutainment. To exclude non-game related publications, the keywords were combined with the words games, gaming, or game design to further specify the search requests.

Significant research on games has been carried out for the last 40 years (Duke, 1974; Shubik, 1975a; Shubik, 1975b). Even in the early days of games research, the educational impact of games has been discussed and described. Computer technology has made great leaps in the past 20 years, causing great changes in the way we think about computer games, but the

essentials of board games have remained more or less the same. Therefore, we incorporated the full 40 years (or so) of research into our literature review.

Using the research approach and search parameters, 85 articles (journal and conference), and 6 books / dissertations were found. Of the articles that were found, 13 described game design methods or aspects of game design. Another 16 described learning theories or instructional strategies used to design games. These articles were also reviewed to find recommended guidelines for game design. A further 15 articles focused on game elements that relate to learning, or that optimize the learning effect of a game. The remaining articles that did not discuss specific learning theories or instructional strategies were excluded from this review, including 18 articles that focused on the uses, effectiveness and advantages of game-based learning, 20 articles that focused on case studies of using games to teach students, and 3 articles that focused on design of non-game-related instructional methods. Interestingly, the majority (73%) of these sources was written after 1999, even though we looked through the full last 40 years of publishing.

All the sources that we had found in the literature review, together with our scientific articles that we encountered during our research, were catalogued through the use of the EndNote

program.

1.4.2 Personal conversations with gamers

The personal conversations with gamers consisted of email exchanges and online chat conversations, that the researcher had with 22 individuals, over the course of about seven years: from September 2003 to September 2010. These personal conversations were both about games and about a variety of other (unrelated) subjects, and were logged automatically by the software that was used for these conversations. For our research only the conversations about games were relevant.

We chose to use the personal chat logs and emails for our research, due to the expected richness of the data, and the amount of data available. In this it provided useful that the researcher was originally a participant in the conversations, as the conversations consisted of context-rich text, short sentences, and a large amount of subculture language. Researchers that did not share this knowledge and experience with both the games and the gamer

subculture would have a harder time understanding what was being discussed. The shorter the sentences, the more the necessity for interpretation. With the researcher knowing the context of the conversations, this allowed him to interpret and analyze the data.

With regards to bias of the data sources, it is important to note that the researcher was not a researcher when having these conversations, and originally never had the intention to use these conversations as research data. The majority of the conversations was held before this research was ever started. Additionally, the objectivity of these sources was guarded through the data sets (chat logs and emails) being ‘frozen’ once it was decided to use those sources for research purposes. This was done on October 7, 2010. No new conversations were added to the research data after this date.

Although online chat and email are different forms of communication, they were treated the same for sorting and categorizing the data. Initial processing of the data involved separating the conversations about games from those about other subjects, and discarding the latter. After that the conversations about games were filtered for relevance. For the chats and emails to be relevant to our research, they had to contain detailed discussions or conversations about games (e.g. rules, gameplay, strategies). If the chats and emails were about planning dates for playing games, or other game-related topics that did not involve actual conversations about specific games, they were discarded.