2. Methodology
In this section we want to make our methodology explicit to the reader. Firstly to
let the reader understand how we have structured this paper. Secondly, to try to
make the arguments for the chosen theories and arguments between them
apparent to the reader so they will be present as the paper is being read.
Section 2.1
After having introduced our topic, our case and problematized the two into a
working problem formulation, our report will be split into three main sections:
theory, empirical data and concept. After the first section, we will make a
theoretical conclusion. This conclusion will be picked up and adjusted after the
second section. This final conclusion will server as a way to ground our third
section, the concept, in our two previous sections. After our concept, we will have
a final conclusion and a perspective look at possible further developments.
Theory section: The purpose of this section will be to argue how the adventure
game genre can be used to facilitate learning and teaching. We will show that
learning and teaching are two inseparable parts of a classroom environment and
show how especially learning can be fostered through adventure games. We will
focus on how learning about astronomy can be integrated into the natural
progress of an adventure game. This section results in a theoretical conclusion
that argues for and sets up a list of major points that must be represented in a
beta concept.
Empirical data section: Our empirical data is gathered through qualitative
interviews with the involved parties of Space Adventures (astronomer, teacher
and students). We have used Steinar Kvale as our method for the interviews that
serve several functions: the interviews are used to test our initial alpha concept.
Furthermore, the interviews are used to gather practical information as well as
inspiration for and about Space Adventures. At the end of this section, the
theoretical conclusions will be adjusted according to the findings of this section
and leave us with arguments in which we can ground our concept.
Concept: Here we will develop our alpha concept into a full out beta concept
based on our two previous sections. This will be presented in the form of a design
document that explains the game concept and explain how the asteroid section of
Space Adventures works. By grounding our decisions in the design document in
our previous conclusions, we will attempt to make an academic argument for our
game design.
Section 2.2 From system theory to adventure games
We have chosen to approach our topic through a system theoretical point of view.
There are several different epistemological foundations on which to base a paper
like ours. We have primarily chosen system theory because it lets us understand
learning and teaching as to separate systems – two systems that are necessarily
present in a classroom. In this way we can show how Space Adventures facilitates
both the learning and teaching process. We will use System theory as presented
by Niklas Luhmann, who wished to accomplish nothing less than a universal
theory to describe modern society. The theory describes modern society reduces
complexity through communication and reflection. To describe such a complex
and dynamic society, the theory itself becomes complex and dynamic. This
strength is also the theories weakness as one easily becomes bogged down in the
interconnected and abstract theory. We have tried to stay focused on the topics
of learning and teaching in our discussion of system theory and thereby avoid
getting bogged down in theoretical questions which are interesting but do not
pertain to our problem formulation.
The system theoretical approach we present in chapter XX is inspired by parts of
the system theoretical epistemological and communicative theory as presented by
Niklas Luhmann in “Socail Systems” (Luhmann 19??). To supplement this
understanding we have used two books by Lars Qvortrup, multimedia professor
at Syddansk University. These books are “Det Lærende Samfund” (Qvortrup
2000) and “Det Hyperkomplekse Samfund” (Qvortrup 199?). We have used this
literature to give a system theoretical perspective on the following terms:
system/environment, mental/social systems, learning, teaching, perturbation,
communicative selections, complexity, structural tilkobling and egen
compleksitet.
In chapter XX we focus on learning and argue that when a student is not
internally motivated to learn, an exterior environment might be created which
substitutes for such motivations and that such an environment has especially
good possibilities in the form of a computer game. Seymore Papert’s theory of
Constructionism is used to argue for how learning is facilitated by the creation of
objects in a public space – so called public entities. Both Luhmann and Papert
draw on the Swiss physiologist Jean Piaget to explain the nature of learning.
Where Luhmann emphasizes the necessary importance of communication (or
teaching acoording to system theory) in this process, Papert’s theory of
Constructionism focuses on building an object, virtual or physical, to engage the
learner in a reflective process of learning. For this reason, Papert is an outspoken
advocate of using computers in schools as their digital nature allows for the
creation of such virtual public entities.
Computer games and learning are an interesting combination because especially
younger people are internally motivated to play these games. If the two could be
coupled, these people would be motivated to learn! We therefore couple
Constructionism with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of Flow.
Csikszentmihalyi is a professor and former chairman of the Department of
Psychology at the University of Chicago and has devoted his life's work to the
study of what makes people truly happy, satisfied and fulfilled – the essence of
Flow. By understanding Flow, we want to understand what kind of external
environments can provide students with the motivation to engage in the creation
of a public entity in the learning process.
The last part of our theory section, chapter XX, will be an explanation of the
adventure game as a genre. We will try to explain the driving force of an
adventure game so Space Adventures can build its learning elements around
these concepts. Primarily we will be using literature from the gaming industry
itsel, namely Game Architecture and Design by Andrew Rollings and Game Design
– Theory & Practice by Richard Rouse. This literature will be supplemented by
academic approaches to the adventure genre. While we will attempt to
acknowledge the academic discussions taking place within the field of adventure
games, our focus will be on what constitutes a good adventure game primarily
from the perspective of the gaming industry.
Section 2.3 Theoretical conclusion
While the three sections will continuously try to draw parallels between one
another, this will be the place where the three theories are pitted against each
other and we will show how the learning process can be tied in to the progression
of an adventure game. The chapter will end with a list of bulletins that should be
included into Space Adventures in order for it to be an adventure game grounded
in learning theories.
Section 2.4 The qualitative interview
Our empirical data will consist of semi-structured interviews with the astronomer
and teacher involved with creating the material for the Asteroid section of the
DSRI site. Furthermore we have interviewed an 8th grade class at Brønshøj
middle school. Our method for conducting and analyzing these interviews are
inspired by Steinar Kvale, a professor and leader of the Center for Qualitative
Methoddevlopment. Kvale is primarily interested in using the material from the
semi-structured interview to obtain a deeper understanding of and insight into
central themes within the lifeworld of the interviewee. This form of analysis can
conflict with our system theoretical approach in that the semi-structured analysis
strives for an analysis of what and how knowledge and understanding is
presented in the interview situation in order to describe the lifeworld of the
interviewee. While system theory argues that knowledge and understanding
cannot be presented directly through language, we will keep this problem in mind
and primarily use the interview to get feedback on our alpha concept, inspiration
for further development as well as a way of collecting concrete data in terms of
asking direct questions.
Section 2.5 Final conclusion
After the presentation and analysis of our empirical data, we will revise our
theoretical conclusion to reflect the findings of the empirical chapter. The
objective is to adjust our theoretical conclusions based on our empirical findings.
We will end up with a list of bulletin points which must be included in the design
of Space Adventures. These bulletins will give us a way of grounding our concept
in our theory and empirical data. While it will never be possible to reduce abstract
theory and analysis into a complete check list, our ambition is to have sufficiently
argued for these points so that we mostly have to deal with how they are
grounded in our list as opposed to why.
Section 2.5 Concept