skip to main content
10.1145/3290607.3312889acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Using Gameplay Design Patterns to Support Children's Collaborative Interactions for Learning

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Co-located games that bring players together have strong potential for supporting children's collaborative competencies. However, there is a challenge how to make results from research work related to this within Child-Computer Interaction (CCI) field easily transferable to future CCI research. Pursuing this challenge, we combined levels of Collaborative Activity (CA) with the design tool gameplay design patterns (GDPs). This combination was used to support comparative play tests of a co-located game with children who have learning difficulties. We report our observations on using our approach, arguing that the possibility of making patterns based on CA concepts such as Reflective Communication points towards collaborative GDPs. Furthermore, this study presents an exemplar that as a flexible and extensible tool GDPs can be used with different theories and models in the CCI field.

References

  1. Christopher Alexander, S. Ishikawa, and M Silverstein. 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York(NY): Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jakob Bardram. 1998. Collaboratior, Coordination, and Computer Support: An Activity Theoretical Approach to the Design of Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Aarhus University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Wolmet Barendregt, Peter Börjesson, Eva Eriksson, and Olof Torgersson. 2017. StringForce: A Forced Collaborative Interaction Game for Special Education. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 713--716. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Karl Bergström, Staffan Björk, and Sus Lundgren. 2010. Exploring Aesthetical Gameplay Design Patterns: Camaraderie in Four Games. In Proceedings of the 14th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (MindTrek '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 17--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Staffan Björk and Jussi Holopainen. 2005. Patterns In game design. Hingham: Charles River Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Katharina Emmerich and Maic Masuch. 2017. The Impact of Game Patterns on Player Experience and Social Interaction in Co-Located Multiplayer Games. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 411--422. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Yrjo Engeström, Katherine Brown, L. Carol Christopher, and Judith Gregory. 1997. Coordination, Cooperation, and Communication in the Courts: Expansive Transitions in Legal Work. In Mind, Culture, and Activity. Seminal Papers from the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, Michael Cole, Yrjo Engeström, and Olga A. Vasquez (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Chapter 28, 369--388. http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521558239Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. GPdP 2019. Gameplay Design Patterns Collection. Retrieved Jan 03, 2019 from http://www.gameplaydesignpatterns.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Roger Johnson, David Johnson, and Mary Stanne. 1985. Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 77, 6 (1985).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Petri Lankoski and Staffan Björk. 2011. Theory Lenses: Deriving Gameplay Design Patterns from Theories. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (MindTrek '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 16--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Yue Pan and Erik Stolterman. 2013. Pattern Language and HCI: Expectations and Experiences. In CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1989--1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Suleman Shahid. 2018. Computer Mediated Playful Interactions: Investigating How Variations in the Level of Gaze Affect Children's Gameplay. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 427--433. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Ivan E. Sutherland. 1963. Sketchpad, a Man-Machine Graphical Communication System. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jose Zagal, Jochen Rick, and Idris Hsi. 2006. Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games. Simulation and Gaming 37, 1 (2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Using Gameplay Design Patterns to Support Children's Collaborative Interactions for Learning

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI EA '19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 2019
        3673 pages
        ISBN:9781450359719
        DOI:10.1145/3290607

        Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 2 May 2019

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • abstract

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader