educational game design

I came across the competition by chance and decided to take part. And I was fortunate enough to be shortlisted for the top few and eventual Finalist of the Learners' Choice Award competition for Online Learning Asia 2002.

How did I design an educational game in a hurry? How could I design a reusable constructivist game engine? How could performance-oriented design build into the game? These were the issues that led me to the design of the educational game as shown in the following screen shots.

FIGURE 1: The start screen with a mission.

From the time I knew of this competition to the submission deadline, I only had two to three weeks to conceptualise, analyse, design, and program.

I did not wish to compromise the instructional design and I wanted the learners learn deep into the subject matter.

So how?

I first decided on the topic: e-Learning Definition, which teaches a concept. I then looked for an existing Macromedia Director's crossword puzzle game, which was credited to Gary Rosenzweig from his book entitled Advance Lingo for Games. Of course, I had to modify the entire programming codes to suit my own conceptual design and re-write it in an object-oriented format.

I went through a rapid instructional design process to understand the potential problems and issues of the learners, and the job performance of an e-learning designer.

FIGURE 2: The puzzle screen.

I looked for a learning theory that I could apply as well as double up as an active learning activity. Constructivist Learning Theory was a good choice because it would facilitate the learners to construct their own understanding.

Instructional Conversation method was applied to let learners see things from multiple angles and make sense of the subject matter. That is, instead of teaching the learners to memorise the definition of e-learning, the learners would have to observe and ponder about the "conversation" that took place between the characters for each crossword puzzle clues. The learners would then need to take down notes, and make sense of the conversation.

FIGURE 3: The instructional conversation.

How could learning be scaffolded in an e-learning situation where no human is present?

When the learners solved the puzzle, the game engine would bring them to a page where they were required to read the viewpoint summary of all the characters, before writing and submitting their reflection.

Upon submission of their self-reflection, the tutors' suggestions would be presented and the learners were again asked to self-reflect, compare and contrast their earlier reflection against tutors' suggestions on a scale of 0-100.

FIGURE 4: Each character presents 
his/her view.

Learning without monitoring in e-learning is undesirable. What good of it if the learners were not using the e-learning?

The game engine provided two types of monitoring mechanisms: one for the learner and the other for the tutor.

The knowledge dashboard was meant to inform the learners' understanding of the subject matter.

FIGURE 5: Learners will be making sense
of the viewpoints.

On the other hand, the tutors could monitor the learning progression through learners' notes and reflections. The tutors would then give their feedback to the learners through the game engine. The tutors could also generate a different set of crossword puzzle and ask the learners to solve the puzzle to re-learn the topic should their performance was in doubt or for a purpose of reinforcing their learning.

Lastly, I used the zoom lens approach from the Elaboration Theory of C. Reigeluth to design the instructional elements. As a result, the overall design of the game engine consisted of both learning and instructional theories.

Two students were involved in this project:  Mr. Goh Nai Sheng and Mr. Cheng Shu Yau, both were Year 3 Students of the Diploma in Multimedia Computing course at the time. They had done an exceptional job in 3D modelling and interface design.