Jo Iacovides

Academic interest
• Games are intrinsically motivating
– Challenge, control, curiosity and fantasy (Malone, 1981;
Malone & Lepper, 1987)
• Potential for learning (Gee, 2004; 2007)
– Active learning, scaffolding, affinity groups etc.
• Games + education = engaged students?
– However, the use of games in education is not always successful (e.g. O’Neil et al., 2006)
– Need for further empirical evidence concerning how and what people learn from their involvement with games (Squire, 2008; Oliver & Carr, 2009)

Informal learning (Vavoula et al., 2005)

• The Player Involvement Model (Calleja, 2011)
– Engagement experienced during game-play
– Longer term motivations for play
– The activities which occur around play e.g. reading game magazines, looking up a walkthrough

• How do motivation, engagement and informal learning relate to each other within the context of gaming?
• Outline of research
– Phase 1: Email interviews
– Phase 2: Case studies
– Phase 3: Wider survey

• Multiple case study approach (Yin, 2009)
• Focusing on game-play and wider activities to investigate:
– How do learning and involvement come together in practice?
• Participants (age 23-59; M = 5, F = 4)
– Eight cases
– Recruited from previous email interview study
– Mix of gamers and more casual players

• Preliminary interview
• Two game-play sessions
– Player and researcher game choice
– Observation
– Collection of physiological data
– Post-play cued interview
• Diaries over three week period
– Final diary interview (Elliot, 1997)

Lab setup

• Problems/challenges that occur during play
• Breakdowns as a source of learning
– Activity theory and contradictions (Oliver &
Pelletier, 2006)
• Different levels of breakdown
– Breakdowns and contradictions (Barr, 2007)
• Different types of breakdown
– Breakdowns in interaction and illusion in terms of how they relate to flow (Ryan & Siegel, 2007)

Defining breakdowns & breakthroughs
• Definitions provided by Sharples (2009)
– Breakdowns are “observable critical incidents where a learner is struggling with the technology, asking for help, or appears to be labouring under a clear misunderstanding”
– Breakthroughs are “observable critical incidents which appear to be initiating productive, new forms of learning or important conceptual change” (p. 10)
• Extended to apply to a game-play context

Game-play breakdowns & breakthroughs
• Occur on three related levels
– Action : unsuccessful vs. successful implementation of strategies
– Understanding : unsure about what to do or where to go vs. solving a problem
– Involvement : boredom or frustration vs. positive engagement
• Examined video, diaries and transcripts for critical instances

Physiological data
• Emotion (e.g. Mandryk & Atkins, 2007)
– Galvanic skin response (GSR) as indicator of arousal
– Heart rate (HR) as indicator of positive and negative emotion (valence)
– Electromyography (EMG) as indicator of valence
• Over the brow = negative (frowning)
• Over the cheek = positive (smiling)
• Identifying critical instances? (Hazlett, 2008)
– Non-expert approach

Coding the data

Utility of the physiological data
• The physiological data did not prove useful in relation to identifying critical instances involving breakdowns and breakthroughs
(Iacovides et al., 2013)
• This was due to:
– Movement artefacts
– Lack of consistent patterns
– Difficulty of pinpointing stimuli (risk of trying to “make” the data fit with gameplay)
– The impact of observation

The effect of observation
• Amy (28) and Mario Kart
– Multiple action breakdowns: “If I’d been on my own, I might have just got annoyed”
– But : “I guess you kind of go, well I’m not going to get annoyed, so, I may as well just find it amusing. As an alternative emotional response to the stupidness that is this game ”
• Physiological reactions are indicators of a complex emotional reaction to playing a game and knowing someone else is watching

• Evaluating claims based on previous research:
1. Breakdowns in action and understanding are not detrimental to involvement
2. Player involvement increases through action and understanding breakthroughs
3. Progress requires breakthroughs in understanding
4. A loss of agency leads to a breakdown in involvement
• Assessing the evidence for examples and counter-examples

Kameo: Katy (23)

Kameo: defeating the glass jawed boss
• Action breakdowns :
– numerous strategies fail e.g. uppercuts
• Action & understanding breakthroughs :
– figures out the correct combination of attacks
• Action breakthrough:
– defeats the boss
• Involvement breakthrough :
– “ Gotcha!”
– Wonders “what’s going to happen next?”

Little Big Planet 2: Natasha (31) & William (32)

Little Big Planet 2: Skate to Victory
• Action breakdowns/breakthroughs :
– carrying out different actions e.g. using jetpacks
• Understanding breakdown (William):
– “What are we actually meant to do?”
– But Natasha helps him achieve a breakthrough by pointing out the drawbridge
• Action breakthrough (William - moving the cylinder)  Understanding breakthrough
(Natasha) “Maybe if we fill that thing with stuff, it comes down”

Doctor Who – Natasha (31)
• Action breakdowns: controller problems mean she is not able to act effectively within the game world
• Involvement breakdown: gets frustrated and quits

Endless Ocean 2: Nick (29)

Endless Ocean 2: “I just didn’t find it interesting”
• Involvement breakdown :
– The game was "very slow and, yeah, boring I guess, it wasn’t stimulating and I just didn’t find it interesting"
• Understanding & action breakdowns :
– Not paying attention to the narrative
– Trouble interpreting the map and navigating
– “I found it hard to concentrate on the game because I wasn’t really enjoying it”

Indiana Jones 2: Linda (59)

Lego Indiana Jones 2: Changing characters
• Repeated action breakdowns :
– Lack of progress: “I'm thinking well, where can I go now? I've done this before”
• Underlying understanding breakdown :
– “I need a character with a gun, I thought well he's useless, he's only got a spanner”
• Involvement breakdown:
– “It's back here, it's in the hub and I was cross”

Refined conjectures
I.
A lack of initial involvement will cause further breakdowns.
II. Involvement will be reduced when breakdowns take too long to overcome or have major consequences, e.g. a loss of progress.
III. Action and understanding breakdowns help to maintain involvement when they lead to breakthroughs.
IV. Involvement breakthroughs occur when overcoming breakdowns leads to a sense of achievement.

Sam & Max – Matt (24)

Sam & Max: Knocking out Whizzer
• Partial understanding breakthrough :
– knows what to do but not how to do it
• Action breakdowns :
– Strategies fail e.g. trying to plant the cheese when
Whizzer isn’t looking
• Action breakthrough :
– clicks on the bathroom door
• Involvement breakdown :
– “that’s what kind of a bit annoyed me because it's like, you know what you've got to do, it's just you've got to do it in the way the game designer wants you to do it"

Refined conjectures

Flower – Alex (41)

Flower: Navigating the canyon
• Action breakdowns :
– Missing petals “all of a sudden we’re too high, and then woop , you can’t get any of those?”
• Understanding breakdown:
– "I’m not sure what’s me, I’m not sure what’s just happening cos of the breezes"
• Involvement breakdown:
– "So, it, kind of was a pretty experience as an on rails type thing, then that can be quite nice but, as a game that’s not very satisfying."

Refined conjectures
VII.Recurring controller problems, that lead to repeated action breakdowns, are an obstacle to the expression of agency.
VIII.The experience of agency is necessary for maintaining involvement.
IX.Agency is reduced if players feel their actions do not have a meaningful impact within the game world.

Discussion
• Are action and understanding breakdowns detrimental to involvement?
• Yes & no  The refined conjectures illustrate:
– Failure is a common, if not integral, component of the game-play experience
– Involvement stems from experiencing cycles of breakdown and breakthrough i.e. through overcoming challenges
– However, when something interrupts the cycle, involvement is negatively affected

Implications
• Game design
– Breakdown and breakthrough categories
– Designers need to support learning
– Players should feel responsible for their progress
• Educational contexts
– The desired learning should be presented in the form of understanding breakthroughs that lead to progress
– Games cannot “make” someone interested in a topic

• Small sample size but can generalise to theory
(Yin, 2009)
– Statements do not represent a definitive theory of learning and involvement
– Serve as a foundation for future research
• Scope to investigate:
– Different platforms e.g. mobile
– Multiplayer contexts e.g. online
– Player strategies e.g. casual vs. hardcore

Thank you!
Email: i.iacovides@ucl.ac.uk
Blog: http://joiacovides.blogspot.com/

References
• Barr, P. (2007). Video game values: Play as human-computer interaction.
Unpublished PhD thesis; Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
• Calleja, G. (2011). In-Game: From immersion to incorporation. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
• Elliott, H. (1997). The use of diaries in sociological research on health experience. Sociological Research Online 2(2).
• Gee, J. P. (2004). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games+ good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning, and literacy. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
• Hazlett, R. (2008). Using biometric measurement to help develop emotionally compelling games. In K. Isbisiter & N.Schaffer (Eds.), Game usability: Advancing the player experience (pp. 187 –205). Burlington, MA:
Morgan Kaufmann.
• Iacovides (2012). Digital games: Motivation, engagement and informal learning. Unpublished doctoral thesis, The Open University.

References
• Iacovides I., Aczel J.C., Scanlon, E., and Woods, W.I.S. (2013). Making sense of game-play: How can we examine learning and involvement?
Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association 1(1).
• Juul, J. (2010) A Casual Revolution: Reinventing Video Games and their
Players. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Mandryk, R. L., & Atkins, M. S. (2007). A fuzzy physiological approach for continuously modeling emotion during interaction with play technologies.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(4), 329 –347.
• Malone, T. W. (1981) Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction.
Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 5, 333-369.
• Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude, learning, and instruction, III:
Conative and affective process analysis, pp. 223-253. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• O’Neil, H. F., Wainess, R., & Baker, E. L. (2005). Classification of learning outcomes: Evidence from the computer games literature. The Curriculum
Journal, 16(4), 455 –474

References
• Oliver, M., & Carr, D. (2009). Learning in virtual worlds: Using communities of practice to explain how people learn from play. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 40(3), 444 –457.
• Pelletier, C., & Oliver, M. (2006). Learning to play in digital games.
Learning, media and technology, 31, 329-342.
• Ryan, W., & Siegel, M. A. (2009). Evaluating interactive entertainment using breakdown: Understanding embodied learning in video games. Proceedings of the 4th Digital Games Research Association Conference, September 1-
5th, Brunel, London.
• Sharples, M. (2009) Methods for Evaluating Mobile Learning. In G.N.
Vavoula, N. Pachler, and A. Kukulska-Hulme (eds), Researching Mobile
Learning: Frameworks, Tools and Research Designs. Oxford: Peter Lang
Publishing Group, pp. 17-39.
• Squire, K. (2008). Open-ended video games: A model for developing learning for the interactive age. In K. Salen (Ed.) The ecology of games:
Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 167 –198). Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.

References
• Vavoula, G. N., Lonsdale, P., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Jones, A., & Hardy,
P. (2005). Report on Mobile learning, science and collaborative activity. EU
Sixth Framework Programme, Information Society Technology,
Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence. Deliverable D33.
–2 for Jointly
Executed Integrated Research Project (JEIRP), Mobile Learning in Informal
Science Settings.
• Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE
Publications, California, USA.

1. Macro level expectations are informed by prior experience, other players and the wider community.
2. Repeated micro involvement depends on expectations being met, the promise of in-game rewards, and external factors such as the price of the game.
3. The unpredictability of outcomes leads to meaningful and compelling experiences only when the outcomes are interpreted as fair and consistent.
4. Narrative and social context contribute to what makes a game play experience meaningful and compelling.

5. A lack of initial involvement will cause further breakdowns.
6. Action and understanding breakdowns contribute to involvement when they are overcome by breakthroughs.
7. However, involvement will be reduced when breakdowns take too long to overcome or have major consequences e.g. a loss of progress.
8. Additionally, an involvement breakdown will occur if outcomes are not considered fair and consistent.
9. Involvement breakthroughs occur when overcoming breakdowns lead to a sense of achievement.

10. Progress involves action breakthroughs, but not necessarily understanding.
11. Action breakthroughs that occur without understanding
(i.e. through trial and error), will be less satisfying.
12. The experience of agency is necessary for maintaining involvement.
13. Reoccurring controller problems are an obstacle the expression of agency.
14. Agency is reduced if players feel their actions do not have a meaningful impact within the game world.