An Exploratory Study of Augmented Reality and Mobile Games Examining Ingress Player Motivation and Potential Educational Value A dissertation presented to the faculty of The Patton College of Education of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Ryan M. Straight May 2015 © 2015 Ryan M. Straight. All Rights Reserved. 2 This dissertation titled An Exploratory Study of Augmented Reality and Mobile Games Examining Ingress Player Motivation and Potential Educational Value by RYAN M. STRAIGHT has been approved for the Department of Educational Studies and The Patton College of Education by Teresa J. Franklin Professor of Educational Studies Renée A. Middleton Dean, The Patton College of Education 3 Abstract STRAIGHT, RYAN M., Ph.D., May 2015, Instructional Technology An Exploratory Study of Augmented Reality and Mobile Games Examining Ingress Player Motivation and Potential Educational Value (303 pp.) Director of Dissertation: Teresa J. Franklin The purpose of this dissertation is to explore the nexus of video games, mobile devices, and augmented reality in an educational light. This is accomplished in part by studying the self-reported demographics, attitudes, habits, and motivations of players of Google’s commercial augmented reality mobile game Ingress. An application of a review of the literature informs how games like Ingress can be leveraged for educational means. Presented is a review of relevant literature, including the historical development of the nature of play and learning, the history and educational usage of massively multiplayer online games and simulations, the use of mobile devices in games and learning, how augmented reality is developing and being used in educational and non- educational settings, and what effects playing video games may have on the player, including problematic gameplay and addiction, gendered concerns, aggressive thoughts and actions, and physical changes identified in gamers or promoted using games. Also included is an examination of a theoretical framework of discovery learning that ties instructional design, learning, and games to Ingress. Data is gathered with an online survey of Ingress players worldwide. A total of 2,276 cases from 59 countries were analyzed. The instrument used has been modified from an original aimed at other massively multiplayer online role-playing games 4 (MMORPGs). The results presented here showed significant demographic and motivational differences between players and between games. Principle component and multiple regression analyses revealed a number of components that describe the motivations of players and related predictors. By comparing these components to scores on an addiction scale, self-reports on interpersonal skills and learning items, valid and reliable predictors emerged. The components identified differ from those found when surveying players of other massively multiplayer online games. Reliable scales for components, an addiction measure, an interpersonal skill measure, and a learning measure were identified. Implications for future studies and research in the field are provided, as well as suggestions for the use of Ingress and other commercial ARGs within the realm of education. 5 Dedication For William, a pistol with a son of a gun, and for Constance, my rails. 6 Acknowledgements This has been a long and tiring road that I could not have traversed without the assistance of a number of people. First, my committee, all of my thanks to my esteemed advisor, Dr. Teresa Franklin, without whom I would not be writing this, much less finishing it. Her constant, unwavering support and belief that I could accomplish this has been an ever-present encouragement. Many thanks to Dr. David Moore, someone who makes it all look so easy and serves to act as an intellectual role model to me. Thanks also to Dr. Greg Kessler for mirroring my excitement about this topic when I first brought it up. Heartfelt thanks also go out to Dr. Seann Dikkers for making me feel welcome in the field and not afraid to jump in. Thanks go out to the folks at Niantic Labs at Google for allowing me to use their name and their game in this study. Thanks also to Dr. Jeroen Lemmens and Dr. Nick Yee for allowing me to graciously use and abuse their respective survey instruments. Furthermore, thanks to the departed and sorely missed Dr. Najee E. Muhammad for making sure I never lost my verve for learning and teaching. Also, thanks to Dr. Christopher Guder for reminding me how nice it will feel to play a video game and not worry that I’m procrastinating. Finally, thanks to my mother, Constance Louise Straight, my aunt, Deloris Geraldine Wright, and my infinitely missed father, William Franklin Straight. I couldn’t have done this without any of you. I love you, all. 7 Table of Contents Page Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3 Dedication ........................................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 6 List of Tables .................................................................................................................... 16 List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 18 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 19 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 20 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 20 Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 22 Scope of the Study ........................................................................................................ 23 Limitations & Delimitations of the Study ..................................................................... 24 Limitations .................................................................................................................24 Delimitations ..............................................................................................................25 Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................... 26 Official Ingress-specific terminology ........................................................................29 8 Organization of the Study ............................................................................................. 30 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature .................................................................................. 31 Play ............................................................................................................................... 31 Johan Huizinga ...........................................................................................................31 Play is voluntary. .................................................................................................. 32 Pleasure ................................................................................................................. 33 Use of the term ‘magic circle’ .............................................................................. 33 Rules ..................................................................................................................... 34 Play-based groups ................................................................................................. 34 Play as a concept ................................................................................................... 35 The ‘otherness’ of play ......................................................................................... 35 Roger Caillois ............................................................................................................36 The sacred and the profane ................................................................................... 37 Defining play differently ....................................................................................... 38 Types of play......................................................................................................... 38 Paidia and ludus .................................................................................................... 39 Agon and alea ....................................................................................................... 39 Mimicry and ilinx ................................................................................................. 40 James Paul Gee ..........................................................................................................41 9 Semiotic domains .................................................................................................. 43 Design grammar .................................................................................................... 43 Affinity groups ...................................................................................................... 44 Establishing literacy