skip to main content
10.1145/2967934.2968109acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageschi-playConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Opening the Black Box of Play: Strategy Analysis of an Educational Game

Published:15 October 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

A significant issue in research on educational games lies in evaluating their educational impact. Although game analytics is often leveraged in the game industry, it can also provide insight into player actions, strategy development, and the learning process in educational games separate from external evaluation measures. This paper explores the potential of game analytics for learning by analyzing player strategies of an educational game that is designed to support algorithmic thinking. We analyze player strategies from nine cases in our data, combining quantitative and qualitative game analysis techniques: hierarchical player clustering, game progression visualizations, playtraces, and think-aloud data. Results suggest that this combination of data analysis techniques provides insights into level progression and learning strategies that may have been otherwise overlooked.

References

  1. Mike Ambinder. 2009. Valve's approach to playtesting: The application of empiricism.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Erik Andersen, Sumit Gulwani, and Zoran Popović. 2013. A Trace-Based Framework for Analyzing and Synthesizing Educational Progressions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 773--782. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Erik Andersen, Yun-En Liu, Ethan Apter, Francois Boucher-Genesse, and Zoran Popović. 2010. Gameplay Analysis Through State Projection. ACM, 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. CodeCombat. 2016. CodeCombat: Learn to Code by Playing a Game. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Adele Cutler and Leo Breiman. 1994. Archetypal analysis. Technometrics 36, 4 (1994).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Phillip DeRosa. 2007. Tracking player feedback to improve game design. Gamasutra (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Nicholas Duchenaut, Nick Yee, Eric Nickel, and Robert J. Moore. 2006. Building an MMO with mass appeal: A look at gameplay in World of Warcraft. Game Developer Magazine 1 (2006), 281--317.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Magy Seif El-Nasr, Anders Drachen, and Alessandro Canossa. 2013. Game analytics: Maximizing the value of player data. Springer Science & Business Media. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Yetunde Folajimi, Britton Horn, Jacqueline Barnes, Amy Hoover, Gillian Smith, and Casper Harteveld. 2016. A Cross-Cultural Evaluation of a Computer Science Teaching Game. In Proceedings of Games+Learning+Society. ETC Press, Pittsburgh, PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Tracy Fullerton. 2008. Game Design Workshop: A playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradley S Greenberg, John Sherry, Kenneth Lachlan, Kristen Lucas, and Amanda Holmstrom. 2010. Orientations to video games among gender and age groups. Simulation & Gaming 41 (2010), 238--259. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Erik Harpstead and Vincent Aleven. Using Empirical Learning Curve Analysis to Inform Design in an Educational Game. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY 2015). ACM Press, 197--207. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Erik Harpstead, Christopher J MacLellan, Vincent Aleven, and Brad A Myers. 2015. Replay Analysis in Open-Ended Educational Games. In Serious Games Analytics, Christian Sebastian Loh, Yanyan Sheng, and Dirk Ifenthaler (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, 381--399.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Casper Harteveld. 2011. Triadic game design: Balancing reality, meaning and play. Springer Science & Business Media. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Casper Harteveld. 2012. Making Sense of Virtual Risks. IOS Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Casper Harteveld, Gillian Smith, Gail Carmichael, Elisabeth Gee, and Carolee Stewart-Gardiner. 2014. A Design-Focused Analysis of Games Teaching Computer Science. In Proceedings of Games+Learning+Society 10. Madison, WI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Casper Harteveld and Steven Sutherland. 2015. The goal of scoring: Exploring the role of game performance.. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Computer-Human Interaction. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Eric Hazan. 2013. Contextualizing Data. In Game Analytics. Springer, 477--496.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. David Hilbert and David Redmiles. 2000. Extracting usability information from user interface events. Comput. Surveys 32, 4 (2000), 384--421. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Britton Horn, Christopher Clark, Oskar Strom, Hilery Chao, Amy J. Stahl, Casper Harteveld, and Gillian Smith. 2016. Design insights into the creation and evaluation of a computer science educational game. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE). ACM Press, Memphis, TN. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Ioanna Iacovides, Anna L Cox, Ara Avakian, and Thomas Knoll. Player Strategies: Achieving Breakthroughs and Progressing in Single-player and Cooperative Games. In Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY 2014). ACM Press, 131--140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Amanda Lenhart and Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2008. Teens, Video Gaming and Civics. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Vladimir I Levenshtein. 1966. Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions, Insertions and Reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10, 8 (1966), 707--710.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Frederick WB Li and Christopher Watson. 2011. Game-based concept visualization for learning programming. In Proceedings of the third international ACM workshop on Multimedia technologies for distance learning. ACM, 37--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Conor Linehan, George Bellord, Ben Kirman, Zachary H Morford, and Bryan Roche. Learning Curves: Analysing Pace and Challenge in Four Successful Puzzle Games. In Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY 2014). ACM Press, 181--190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Yun-En Liu, Erik Andersen, Richard Snider, Seth Cooper, and Zoran Popović. 2011. Feature-based Projections for Effective Playtrace Analysis. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games (FDG '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 69--76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Christian Sebastian Loh, Yanyan Sheng, and Dirk Ifenthaler. 2015. Serious Games Analytics: Methodologies for Performance Measurement, Assessment, and Improvement. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Truong-Huy Dinh Nguyen, Magy Seif El-Nasr, and Alessandro Canossa. 2015. Glyph: Visualization Tool for Understanding Problem Solving Strategies in Puzzle Games. Foundations of Digital Games (FDG) (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Jackie O'Kelly and J Paul Gibson. 2006. RoboCode & problem-based learning: a non-prescriptive approach to teaching programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 38, 3 (2006), 217--221. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Joseph C Osborn, Ben Samuel, Joshua Allen McCoy, and Michael Mateas. 2014. Evaluating play trace (dis)similarity metrics. In 10th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Mikki H Phan, Jo R Jardina, Sloane Hoyle, and Barbara S Chaparro. 2012. Examining the Role of Gender in Video Game Usage, Preference, and Behavior. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. SAGE Publications, 1496--1500.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Robert C. Prim. 1957. Shortest Connection Networks And Some Generalizations. Bell System Technical Journal 36 (Nov. 1957), 1389--1401.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Ramon Romero. 2008. Successful instrumentation: Tracking attitudes and behviors to improve games. In Game Developers' Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Angel Serrano-Laguna, Javier Torrente, Pablo Moreno-Ger, and Baltasar Fernández-Man. 2014. Application of Learning Analytics in Educational Videogames. Entertainment Computing 5 (2014), 313--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. David Williamson Shaffer and James Paul Gee. 2012. The Right Kind of GATE: Computer games and the future of assessment. Technology-based assessments for 21st century skills: Theoretical and practical implications from modern research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Valerie Shute and Matthew Ventura. 2013. Stealth assessment: Measuring and supporting learning in video games. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. George Siemens and Ryan S J d Baker. 2012. Learning Analytics and Educational Data Mining: Towards Communication and Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. ACM, 252--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Catherine A Sugar and Gareth M James. 2003. Finding the Number of Clusters in a Dataset: An Information-Theoretic Approach. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (2003), 750--763.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Robert L Thorndike. 1953. Who belongs in the family? Psychometrika 18 (Dec. 1953), 267--276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Allen Tucker, Fadi Deek, Jill Jones, Dennis McCowan, Chris Stephenson, and Anita Verno. 2006. ACM K-12 CS Model Curriculum. Computer Science Teachers Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Opening the Black Box of Play: Strategy Analysis of an Educational Game

          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 PLAY '16: Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play
            October 2016
            424 pages
            ISBN:9781450344562
            DOI:10.1145/2967934

            Copyright © 2016 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 15 October 2016

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            CHI PLAY '16 Paper Acceptance Rate36of124submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate421of1,386submissions,30%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader