Impact of Narrative, Character Creation, and Game Mechanics on Student Engagement in a Game-Based Chemical Engineering Laboratory Course
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Paper ID #12396 Impact of Narrative, Character Creation, and Game Mechanics on Student Engagement in a Game-Based Chemical Engineering Laboratory Course Mr. Daniel D. Anastasio, University of Connecticut Daniel Anastasio received his B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Connecticut in 2009. He is pursuing a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering at the University of Connecticut while acting as a co- instructor for the chemical engineering capstone laboratory and the first-year foundations of engineering course. His research interests include osmotically driven membrane separations and engineering peda- gogy. Dr. Aravind Suresh, University of Connecticut Aravind Suresh is an Assistant Professor-in-Residence in the Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Department at the University of Connecticut. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Connecticut in 2011 and his B.Tech. in Chemical Engineering from the National Institute of Technology Trichy, India in 2004. His primary interests are in undergraduate engineering laboratory education, chemical vapor deposition of polymers, and catalytic activity in high-temperature oxides. Prof. Daniel D. Burkey, University of Connecticut Page 26.888.1 Page c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Impact of Narrative, Character Creation, and Game Mechanics on Student Engagement in a Game-Based Chemical Engineering Laboratory Course 1. Introduction As modern students have come of age in a time where video games, whether mobile, console, or social, have become ubiquitous, game-based learning (GBL) is gaining increased attention as a tool used in education1-5. In GBL, games are used as environments and contexts where students can learn via trial-and-error with no permanent consequences6-8. Note that GBL is not merely free-form activity, but one with rules that guide and dictate the experience, as well as offering a condition in which the game can be “won”9,10. One method of GBL that has come to the forefront recently is gamification, or the application of game elements to a non-game context11. The idea behind gamification suggests that if activities can be made to feel more game-like, participants will feel more engaged by them and will be more likely to participate11,12. The game elements also give participants additional ways to engage with a certain activity, either through the aesthetic of the game elements or through new problems to solve. Many of the common elements of games that gamified scenarios use in various capacities are shown in Figure 1. The specific game elements used in any given context can vary by application, as gamification is a tool that can be applied to multiple contexts; however, there is no one universal method for effective gamification13. Rules Goals Conflict Feedback Levels Common Game Elements Aesthetic Story Teamwork Rewards Time Figure 1. Common game elements used in gamified contexts13 While gamification of engineering courses has been garnering interest lately, the majority of gamified courses documented in open literature focus predominantly on badge, point, and leaderboard (BPL) gamification3, 14-16. In BPL gamification, students are rewarded for their actions by earning points, special badges to commemorate achievements, and progression up a leaderboard13. These implementations predominantly focus on rules (i.e. how to earn points), feedback (i.e. how many points you earned), and goals (i.e. you need to earn this many points). 26.888.2 Page While these rewards can effectively motivate student action by providing a reward and an incentive, they do not completely capitalize on all gamification can offer a classroom, such as narrative, conflict, and the game aesthetic13. The game elements used in BPL gamification can be made more meaningful to the game itself, which will provide a deeper engagement than the use of a points system alone17. Rather than simply awarding badges, the badges could grant students some special ability during the game. Rather than awarding points that help students win the game, the points could serve a function in the game itself before a winner is declared at the end of the semester. Furthermore, there is little to keep the student invested in the game over the course of the semester when just BPL methods are used. The novelty of game-based systems may wear off more quickly if these limited elements are used. This trend was observed previously by the authors when implementing a BPL game implementation in the capstone laboratory course at the University of Connecticut in Storrs15, as students showed high interest in the game initially, but began to participate less in game activities as the semester progressed. The intent of this study was to develop a more meaningful game-based system that would motivate students to participate more actively in the capstone chemical engineering laboratory course and improve their attitude toward the course for the full duration of the course. Students could participate in optional tasks in hopes of earning additional grade points at the end of the semester. This system would build off a previously implemented BPL system introduced to the laboratory curriculum with some success in the 2012-2013 academic year by introducing a game mechanic. This mechanic forced the students to defend their point totals from a game-specific force, designed to promote student participation throughout the semester, rather than primarily in the beginning when the concept is at its most novel. Further offerings of the game were enhanced through narrative elements and by allowing students to create their own in-game avatars. The system was designed to be no cost to implement and highly adaptable based on the needs of the individual instructor. Student attitudes toward the course and game elements, as well as student participation trends and some preliminary trends relating game participation to student grades, will be presented. 2. Course Structure The capstone laboratory course at the University of Connecticut is a one-semester (3 credit) course taken in the fall or spring of the senior year. This course follows a one-credit fluid mechanics laboratory in the fall of the junior year and a two-credit transport and kinetics laboratory in the spring of the junior year. The capstone course meets for two, four-hour laboratory periods a week, and students complete three experiments (one that lasts two periods, one that lasts four, and one that lasts six). Each experiment has a different style of report; the first experiment is an individually written, 15-page laboratory report, the second experiment is a group oral presentation, and the final experiment is a group poster presentation. As the capstone laboratory fulfills a university writing requirement, students must submit a draft of their written report and have it reviewed by an instructor before turning in a final report. In general, the course that used the systems described in the next section was graded out of a possible 3300-3500 grade points, in which 2700 were from the three reports, 300 were from student pre-laboratory reports, and 300 were from peer assessments. A few other assignments, such as graded presentation abstracts and a written report draft completeness score, were added 26.888.3 Page to later offerings of the course. The game structure originally implemented in this course was a straightforward use of BPL gamification. Students were split into three teams and were given optional tasks to complete. These tasks were designed to encourage students to collect higher quality experimental data and improve their laboratory reports, and the tasks were not activities that were traditionally graded. Completion of individual tasks awarded student teams with team points, which were independent from grade points. This structure is illustrated in Figure 2. At the end of the semester, the team with the highest team point total earned a reward, which was most likely a small boost to grade points. Points from Points from Required Optional Assignments Tasks Student 1 Grade Points Student 1 Student 2 Grade Points Student 2 Student 3 Grade Points Student 3 Student Team Point Student 4 Grade Points Student 4 Total Student 5 Grade Points Student 5 Student 6 Grade Points Student 6 Figure 2. Diagram of previously implemented gamified course structure, where students completed required course material for grade points and optional course material for team points. 3. New Game Methodology 3.1 Game Mechanic In an attempt to move beyond BPL gamification toward more meaningful gamification, the mechanics of the game were expanded. Rather than simply competing to maximize their team point totals, students collected three different kinds of team points (common points, uncommon points, and rare points), which were earned based on the relative ease or complexity of the tasks. During each experiment period, students collected common, uncommon, and rare points for their respective teams. After each experiment, the defense phase occurs. Student teams have their point totals reduced until a previously announced amount has been deducted. Teams first lose common points. If more points are needed, they are taken from the team’s uncommon point total. If still more points are needed once uncommon points are depleted, student teams will lose 26.888.4 Page rare points. After the defense phase, another collection phase occurs where students are encouraged to continue collecting common, uncommon and rare points. This cycle continues until the end of the semester, shown in Figure 3. At the end of the semester, the amount of rare points the student team has maintained will correlate to a bonus amount of grade points added to the grade point totals of each student on the team. Collection Phase Defense Phase C U R C U R Student teams complete tasks Attacking wave reduces points, to add to team Common, starting with Common, then Uncommon, and Rare Points. Uncommon, then Rare. Figure 3.