A card game for designing activities for technology-enhanced learning in higher education

Currently in TEL there is a confusion between GBL, gamification and serious games. While trying to distinguish between these three is out of the scope of the paper, it should be noted that a basic difference is that GBL achieved by educational games does not need to be digital (as the case herein), in contrast to gamification and serious games (Martens & Mueller, 2016). Regarding educational games, researchers have earlier shown interest in designing and testing them (de Freitas, 2018). Boyle et al. (2016) for example, suggest that educational games can facilitate learning on behalf of the game participants by captivating their attention and engagement. Game elements that support engagement are: structural game elements that influence players’ thoughts and actions (e.g., objectives, roles, and progress), elements that provide opportunities for interactivity, participation and involvement (e.g., conflicts and procedures), elements that trigger a sense of enjoyment and fun (e.g., challenges and story), and elements that attract players’ attention (e.g., text, video, animation; Abdul Jabbar & Felicia, 2015).

Learning processes that can be effectively supported by educational games involve students taking an active role by applying their knowledge, making decisions, solving problems, developing their creativity, and by communicating and collaborating with their peers (Henderson et al., 2019; Limantara et al., 2019). Yet, others suggest that rather than investigating whether educational games can be effective, one should focus on how–or under what conditions–they can be effective (Clark et al., 2015). Consequently, to increase the effectiveness of educational games, several design principles have been offered (see e.g., Gee, 2005; Schrier, 2019). First, the purpose of the game has to be made clear to the participants beforehand. Second, the participants need to have the necessary knowledge of the game rules and its content in order to relate it to their previous knowledge as well as to learn new skills and knowledge (Eberhardt, 2016). Also, when creating educational games learning materials are needed to be well integrated into the gameplay (Choi et al., 2012).

Games can be classified into different genres, such as simulation, strategy, and role-playing (Chen et al., 2017), and they often have well-defined rules and objectives (Braad et al., 2019). However, the problems that the participants face during a game are often open-ended, i.e., they rarely have a correct answer and instead, there is often a range of solutions that are ‘right’. There can also be a range of solutions that are clearly ‘wrong’. Participating in an educational game involves applying knowledge to the solution of a problem and analytic skills. Educational games can yield both cognitive and attitudinal benefits (Katsaliaki & Mustafee, 2015; Marfisi-Schottman et al., 2018). Yet, a systematic review (Abdul Jabbar & Felicia, 2015) examining learning in GBL exhibited that 49% of the papers included in the review aimed to support skills’ acquisition; 47% aimed at knowledge acquisition, and only 4% aimed at behaviour or attitudinal change. An example of the latter involves the case of Burkey et al. (2017), in which a ‘Cards Against Humanity’-style card game was tested for increasing the awareness of engineering university students on ethical issues in the profession. The results of integrating this card game in the course curriculum showed increased interest and engagement among the participating students in engineering ethical dilemmas.

Over the past years, researchers have proposed several LD tools and approaches but their adoption among teachers has been low (Pozzi et al., 2020). One reason is the difficulty of charasterising the LD process as a whole on behalf of the educator who creates the LD in a unified way. For example, it can be systematic or it can be creative; it can be flexible or structured. Another challenge concerns representations or ‘languages’ that describe the LD process in a way that is appealing for educators (Pozzi et al., 2020).

There is an abundance of frameworks for the lifecycle the LD process. According to Muñoz-Cristóbal et al. (2018), this is due to the absence of a common vision on the conceptualization and scope of the LD. A recent example (Pozzi et al., 2020) presents a model that comprises three phases: a) conceptualization (e.g., defining learning objectives, identifying content areas to be addressed and pedagogical strategies), b) plan the flow of activities (e.g., identify tools and resources to be used), and c) enactment of the LD ranging from a single learning activity to a whole course using some (digital) learning environment.

In addition to frameworks, research has been focusing on the creation of tools and artefacts that can be used in the various phases of creating a LD. For example, to help educators conceptualise the learning situation, some approaches suggest the use of artefacts such as sketches, notes and drawings (Muñoz-Cristóbal et al., 2018). However, despite the existence of several LD tools and artefacts, support for collaborative learning design is still scarce (Martinez-Maldonado et al., 2017). Notable exceptions include a few computer-based tools: the ‘Ld-shake’ tool, an environment created to facilitate team-based LD (Hernández-Leo et al., 2014) and the ‘Educational Design Studio’, which is an ecology of devices (e.g., multi-surface technologies, computers, cameras, microphones) and artefacts (e.g., notes) that support the co-creation of LDs (Martinez-Maldonado et al., 2017).

The approach that closely resembles the one described herein is the GRASP (a TEL design framework) card game. It was adopted in a workshop of the Annual Conference of the Association for Learning Technology in 2018.¹ GRASP is a card-based gamified approach that aims to simplify the process of selecting tools and incorporating them into effective teaching and learning. The GRASP approach aims to: 1) conceptually link pedagogy with technology tools, 2) enable a flipped learning style for rich learning experiences, 3) focus on VLE activities and online course design, and 4) encourage participation and collaboration between students and staff.

The remainder of this section describes two card-based gamified approaches that–although their scope is different from the scope of our approach–touch upon using TEL and cards to achieve the learning objectives at stake (first case), or using cards and GBL to achieve TEL-related learning objectives (second case). The first case involves the work of Buchner and Kerres (2020) who presented Augmented Reality cards (for computer science education), which can be used by the students to learn and practice with their smartphones. Each card depicts a component of a classic computer system as a two-dimensional representation. The instructional approach adopted follows the 3C model which comprises three components: content, construction, and communication. The content facilitates the acquisition of knowledge, which is further applied via problem-based learning activities that revolve around technical issues that students need to tackle (construction). Communication takes place between learners in the case of collaborative learning activities, as well as between learners and the teacher when the latter provides support. The second case involves the work of Broos et al. (2020) and demonstrates the methodology and the results from a reusable workshop format named WETS (Workshop for obtaining Educational Technology at Scale) using a card-based approach to coordinate Learning Analytics policy making and implementation at scale. The goal was to use this format as a pragmatic approach and instrument to engage stakeholders in the realization of projects aiming at implementing TEL innovation that mostly focus on learning analytics at an institutional scale, within a higher education institution. Based on preliminary empirical results, the authors argue that WETS can foster constructive discussion and improves awareness, and that its main output, i.e., a timeline of priorities, is a valuable input for the project teams.

The game consists of 64 cards that were created from scratch and made available in print format to the players. The cards are divided into seven categories that correspond to the components of a TEL situation: 1) Assessment, 2) Criteria, 3) Methods, 4) Personas, 5) Missions, 6) Subjects, and 7) Tools. The groups of players use these cards to suggest an idea about a TEL solution. The card categories cover a wide range of themes, approaches, and possibilities within a TEL environment. For example, the ‘Tools’ category comprises a series of digital e-learning tools and systems, e.g., learning management systems and classroom response systems. The ‘Subject’ category pertains to the subject matter taught (e.g., quantum mechanics). In the ‘Methods’ category, one may find examples such as mobile learning, problem-based learning, etc. The ‘Missions’ category involves broad goals considered from a students’ viewpoint, e.g., fair and transparent assessment, help students learn from each other, promote autonomous lifelong learning. The ‘Criteria’ category pertains to goals that justify the use of TEL, including constructive alignment (Kandlbinder, 2014), promoting higher order thinking, and stimulating active learning. The ‘Mission’ category, in combination with the “Criteria” category is the basis upon which one can judge whether the TEL solution that is suggested by the players is good or not. Moreover, a blank card named ‘Other’ is added to the cards in case participants want to add a free choice to any of the categories. Each card comprises an illustrative figure and some accompanied brief, simplified text that aimed to explain what the card is about (see Fig. 1 for an example).

Succinctly, the rules of the game pertain to each group performing the following steps: i) shuffle and select cards that together set the broader context of the TEL solution i.e., three cards in the categories of ‘Persona’, ‘Subject’, and ‘Mission’, ii) shuffle and select cards that together set the approach of the TEL solution i.e., four cards in total from the deck in the categories of ‘Methods’, ‘Tools’, and ‘Assessment’, and iii) select a ‘Criteria’ card (in addition to that of ‘Active Learning’, which was selected by default for all groups). Picking up the cards themselves involves a random selection as the cards–similar to most games of cards–are one-side only and facing down.

Playing the card game involves exploring in a joyful manner various ways of teaching and learning with technology. The game itself focuses on two rounds of hands-on activities that consist of: 1) creating a worst-case scenario, and 2) the best possible scenario of a TEL solution. The worst-case scenario is each time a scenario that creates a ‘bad’ (or undesirable) TEL solution with respect to the mission and the criteria at stake. The aim of the game is to explore and establish relationships between these several components of a TEL solution and thereafter, to explain how they fit together in a learning activity, as well as to reflect and explain why a TEL activity is bad in the first round and good in the second round. This is achieved by comparing and contrasting the different solutions and exploring how they fit together in a learning activity, while reflecting on the possibilities and the challenges of technology. The cards are licensed under an open license (Creative Commons license) and they are freely available online.² Fig. 2 depicts a scene of the gameplay during the workshop where a group is trying to combine the cards into a coherent TEL solution.

Participants that attended the workshop were the university teachers and students that were interested in the topic e.g., a playful approach towards the conceptualization and the design of TEL activities. In their vast majority, they were either master students or university educators from various countries (For more information about them, see Section 5).

To understand participants’ attitudes towards the designed card game and the process of playing it, a written evaluation form that included a questionnaire was disseminated to the participants at the end of the workshop. The questionnaire was novel designed (i.e. it was not an adopted scale), since the papers that are mentioned in the background section did not include any research instrument that could be reused or modified for the purpose of this research. The questionnaire was validated in a pilot with a small number of faculty members. It included questions concerning:

Filling in the survey was not mandatory, and the data collected were handled by the researchers in line with the new EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The game was tested empirically in a three-hour interactive workshop that took place in the International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication, Technologies and Learning (IMCL)which took place in Greece in 2019. The workshop was held in English and the cards’ content was also designed in English. The workshop was not compulsory for the conference participants. The structure of the workshop resembles the one described in Broos et al. (2020). At the beginning of the workshop, the workshop organisers introduced the game to the participants (purpose, materials, and rules) and explained the workshop format. Next, the participants were grouped randomly into groups of five-six persons to play the card-game. While they were playing the game, the workshop’s organisers (two of the authors of this paper) were answering questions if something was unclear to the participants. At the end of each of the two rounds (i.e., the worst-case scenario and the best-case scenario), the results of the groups were discussed. In total, the two rounds lasted around two hours. The winner of the first round was the group that had thought of the worst TEL solution with respect to the criteria cards that the group had selected, and the opposite was true for the second round. The winners were decided by the participants through voting. At the end of the game, a small closing session took place, and the participants were asked to fill in the survey instrument in a paper format, individually and anonymously.

The quantitative data (points 1 and 2 described in the previous section) were analysed using basic descriptive statistics. The qualitative data (points 3 to 5) were analysed manually using Grounded Theory having no pre-conceived dimensions or conceptual categories in mind. That is, the analysis was performed in a deductive manner allowing the main codes to emerge from the data, following the steps of the process described in Allan (2003).

In total, 40 persons participated in the workshop; 36 of them answered the survey. Figure 3 depicts the distribution of the participants across age groups. As it is shown in the Fig. 3, the age range was very broad. In terms of occupation, eight were faculty members, twenty-four were master students, two were educational consultants at universities, and two were researchers working in higher education.

Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the participants' responses on whether the goal and the rules of the game were clear. As shown in Fig. 4, the majority of the participants answered positively or very positively regarding the clarity of the goals of the game, whereas Fig. 5 demonstrates that the majority of the participants were moderately or somewhat satisfied regarding the clarity of the game rules.

Table 1 presents the results of the qualitative analysis and shows the main concepts that emerged from the participants’ comments with respect to what they liked on the one hand, and what they disliked on the other hand, regarding the game. Also, the table shows the frequency of occurrence i.e., times mentioned by different participants. On the positive side, the four most frequently mentioned aspects indicate that the social aspect of the game worked well if we aggregate the comments that claim that it promoted teamwork, collaboration, communication, interaction with the groups, and sharing of different perspectives. On the negative side, there existed two main hurdles, namely, time constraints and difficulty to understand the game rules or the instructions given.

This section describes the participants’ TEL scenarios of one group for illustrative purposes. Eliciting information about the cards used, the ‘bad’ scenario and the ‘good’ scenario was performed by the authors via aggregating information from the participants’ responses. Thus, the excerpts used are taken from the participants’ answers in the survey.