CREATING EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOR STUDENTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM An Interactive Qualifying Project Report submitted to the faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science By _____________________________ Nicholas Baker _____________________________ Allyson Barford _____________________________ Seth Borg ___________________________ Elizabeth Heneberry Date: March 1, 2002 Approved: _____________________________________ Professor Gregory Theyel, Major Advisor _____________________________________ Professor Stephen Matson, Major Advisor Authorship We, the Science Year IQP team submit that this report and our project work reflects a collaborative team effort from all four group members. 1. Abstract The WPI Science Year IQP intends to contribute to efforts to revitalise interest in science among students ages ten to nineteen by capturing their attention and interest with interactive web-based computer games focusing on the popular themes of sports and inventions. In developing these games, the project team researched student interest in science and web- based games, the UK national curriculum, and educational game design and production. Final deliverables include comprehensive game design documents, detailed storyboards, and two Flash-based Internet games. 2. Executive Summary Educators and industry representatives in the United Kingdom have expressed concern about the decline of interest in scientific study among children and young adults between 10 and 19 years of age. Resources and initiatives are needed for making science provocative and exciting to today’s youth. Science Year is a UK government-based initiative that seeks to spawn interest in this target age group through various educational resources such as web-based games, nationwide projects, and CD-ROMs for use in the classroom. Science Year wishes to create web-based activities involving the themes of sports and inventions as another tool for stimulating interest in science and technology. Since it is widely acknowledged that scientific and technological advances will continue to be responsible for many changes in our lives, the need for young scientists will also continue. Reaching out to young people and engaging them in science activities is critical for inspiring the scientists of tomorrow. A number of organisations have started to reach out to students through the Internet to help them develop scientific skills and interests. Building on the resources that Science Year has already developed to promote science to young people, the WPI Science Year IQP has researched and produced new, dynamic additions to their website. We have created two web-based games focused on sports and inventions that will interest young people in science and technology. Children throughout the United Kingdom will use these Internet games and will gain a better understanding of the pervasiveness and importance of science and technology. In order to create web games that would stimulate interest in science and technology in young people, we employed a number of methods. We researched the interests of people in our target age group of 10 to 19, and we interviewed several students within this target age group. By talking to these people, we tried to understand what types of games really got them engaged. Next, we researched both the national curriculum requirements in the United Kingdom and the fundamental strategies and techniques involved in designing educational media for younger audiences. We then began rigorous, daily brainstorming sessions, to generate ideas for our games. Concurrently, we worked with Science Year and their web- design affiliate Telepathy to gain an understanding of their past work, research, and expectations for our own final games. After each daily brainstorming session we selected a number of game candidates that we felt showed potential. We developed the candidates as short game summary sheets called design treatments, which briefed their gameplay, scientific interactions, and development specifications. After completing 22 design treatments, we put each game through a filtering process to select the finalists. Our criteria included the key points we found in our study of the types of games that interest children, and what we could feasibly build in seven weeks. The three filters that made up our criteria were the science filter, the entertainment filter and the feasibility filter. This process helped us to narrow our list of 22 games down to eight. We sought advice from Science Year and Telepathy about our finalists, and based on this advice, we were able to choose two game ideas that we thought most satisfied our goals. The games included a rock climbing game named ‘Climbin’ High’ and an invention based game named ‘Feed the Mind.’ Our background research provided us with insight on how to create games that would inspire young people’s interest in science and technology. Observing students showed us that they tend to skip over lengthy written explanations in educational games and jump immediately to the actual gameplay. We also observed that the students played games with continuous game play and good graphics and often those with violent themes. The latter was of particular concern, as we choose to be conscious of the values our own games would reflect concerning violence and other controversial content. Meeting with the Science Year team gave us valuable information concerning what kind of learning experience they wanted the games to offer and how science should be presented in the games. At the same time, we developed our own process for evaluating our game ideas, and this process helped us sculpt the goals and game ‘traits’ we wanted for our own games. Finally, Telepathy was a great help in aiding us to narrow down our selection to the final two games, while at the same time impressing upon us the limits of technology for game design. Their advice helped us realise the particular nuances of the software we would be using to create our games, allowing us to choose not only the most creative and educational game candidates, but also the most feasible. Moving on to game production, we utilised several divisions of labour. We divided our team into two groups, one for each game. In addition, one member of each group researched the pertinent scientific background information while the other person worked at programming and developing the game. The people conducting research spent their time working out the details of our two final design documents and developing the wording and language of the scientific text in the games. Meanwhile, the people programming produced art, developed gameplay logic and mechanics, and gathered sound effects. At the end of the production period, Science Year loaded our games to a secure section of their website. Members of the Science Year staff and a small focus group of student players provided their reactions and suggestions and we adjusted the games accordingly. We submitted our two final games to Science Year for presentation on their website, when the themes of sports and inventions become the site’s primary focus. Our team reached a number of conclusions while designing and producing our games. First, the short production schedule and limited resources hindered our game designs and creative ideas. Second, we found ways to build creativity into our games with small details and added options. Third, we derived value from observing the sorts of games and activities children already enjoy and working to build similar themes into games pertaining to less popular subject areas such as science. Finally, we concluded that educational media and new initiatives to present science to younger audiences do not need to present science in an unrealistic and purely ‘fun’ manner; they just need to present it within an environment that children enjoy interacting with in a way that they can understand and control. Table of Contents 1. ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... 3 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 4 3. TABLE OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... 11 4. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 12 5. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 14 5.1 SCIENCE AMONG YOUNG ADULTS: AN IMAGE PROBLEM .............................................14 5.1.1 It’s Geeky! ................................................................................................................ 15 5.1.2 Gender ...................................................................................................................... 16 5.1.3 Science is Boring and Irrelevant? ............................................................................ 16 5.2 GETTING THEM INTERESTED: EFFORTS TO MAKE SCIENCE PROVOCATIVE FOR CHILDREN ............................................................................................................................. 19 5.2.1 General Strategies .................................................................................................... 19 5.2.2 Science in Sports ...................................................................................................... 20