Narrative World Building: Creative Applications for Gamification in Study Abroad
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v36i1.695Keywords:
Gamification, humanities, narrative world, pedagogy, study abroadAbstract
This study examined a cohort of 12 study abroad participants taking a course on video game topography and narrative in Salamanca, Spain, to determine how inhabiting and co-creating narrative worlds as part of the coursework might impact the experiences of the students inside and outside of the classroom as they engaged in mandated and optional cultural engagement activities, such as museum tours and excursions to historical sites. Students completed two gameful learning activities: 1) they co-created their own narrative game world in a group game proposal assignment drawing upon research from storytelling through game environments, and 2) they created independent digital journals of their experiences through the perspective of a gaming avatar chosen at the beginning of the course. Results from pre- and post-self-report surveys indicate that the game proposal assignment allowed students to develop stronger connections with one another while conducting research that gave them additional context for their cultural surroundings. However, those same students criticized participation in pre-defined environments or activities within the photo journal assignment that they perceived to lack authenticity. Future iterations of similar course designs should establish the course content and context as a foundation before enabling students to co-author the course’s game narrative. Assessment of learning outcomes beyond self-reports is also recommended.
Abstract in SpanishEste estudio examinó a una cohorte de 12 estudiantes de intercambio estudiando una clase de topografía y narrativa de videojuegos en Salamanca, España, para determinar como habitar en y cocrear estos mundos basados en la narrativa, parte del trabajo de la clase, podría impactar la experiencia de los estudiantes dentro y fuera de la clase mientras participan en actividades culturales mandatorias y opcionales como visitas a museos y excursiones a lugares históricos. Los estudiantes completaron dos actividades de aprendizaje lúdicas: 1) cocrearon y presentaron una propuesta sobre su propio juego basado en la narrativa, gracias a investigación sobre la narración de historias condicionada por el entorno y 2) crearon diarios digitales independientes documentando sus experiencias desde la perspectiva del avatar creado para el juego y elegido al principio de la clase. Resultados de encuestas tomadas antes y después indican que trabajar en una propuesta sobre sus propios videojuegos permitió a los estudiantes desarrollar conexiones más fuertes entre ellos mientras hacían investigación que les ofreció contexto adicional de su entorno cultural. Aunque esos mismos estudiantes criticaron la participación en entornos predefinidos o actividades de la tarea del diario sobre los que sintieron falta de autenticidad. Futuras iteraciones de cursos diseñados similarmente deberían establecer el contenido y contexto del curso como base antes de permitir a los estudiantes coescribir la narrativa de juego de la clase. Asesoramiento de los resultados de aprendizaje más allá de encuestas es recomendado.
Downloads
References
Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. Multi-user entertainment (MUSE) Ltd. https://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Center for Academic Innovation. (2020). GradeCraft. The Regents of the University of Michigan. https://www.gradecraft.com/
Committee on Undergraduate Science Education. (1999). Transforming undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. National Academy Press.
Cruz, L., & Penley, J. M. (2014). Too cool for school?: The effects of gamification in an advanced interdisciplinary course. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 3(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v3n2.12991 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v3n2.12991
Davidson, C. N. (2017). The new education: How to revolutionize the university to prepare students for a world in flux. Basic Books.
Deresiewicz, W. (2014). Excellent sheep: The miseducation of the American elite and the way to a meaningful life. Free Press.
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Institutional Research. (2020). Enrollment fact sheet: Spring 2019, 2018-2019 academic year. https://ir.erau.edu/Publications/Factsheet/PDF/Spring%202019%20Factsheet.pdf
Farber, M. (2015). Gamify your classroom: A field guide to game-based learning. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1459-5
Frontczak, N.T. (1998). A paradigm for the selection, use and development of experiential learning activities in marketing education. Marketing Education Review, 8(3), 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.1998.11488641 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.1998.11488641
Gault, J., Leach, E., Duey, M., and Benzing, T. (2018). Enhancing the value of professional experience in undergraduate education: Implications for academic and career counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling, 55(4), 144-154. https://doi.org/10.1002/joec.12094 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/joec.12094
Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. St. Martin’s Griffin. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/950566.950595
Hagood, T.C., Norman, N.J., Park, H., and Williams, B. M. (2018). Playing with learning and teaching in higher education: How does reacting to the past empower students and faculty? In C. E. Watson and T.C. Hagood (Eds.), Playing to learn with reacting to the past. (pp. 159-192). University of Georgia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61747-3_9
Honebein, P., Duffy, T., and Fishman, B. (1993). Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In T. M. Duffy et al. (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning. (pp. 87-108). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78069-1_5
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Marczewski, A. (2014, January 28). Marczewski’s gamification user types. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/marczewski-gamification-user-types
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. Penguin Books.
Olson, R. (2015). Houston, we have a narrative. University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226270982.001.0001
Rose, T. (2015). The end of average: How we succeed in a world that values sameness. HarperOne.
Savicki, V., & Price, M.V. (2017). Components of reflection: A longitudinal analysis of study abroad student blog posts. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 29(2), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v29i2.392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v29i2.392
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Harvard University Press.
Van Roy, R. and Zaman, B. (2017). Why gamification fails in education and how to make it successful: Introducing nine gamification heuristics based on self-determination theory. In M. Ma and A. Oikonomou (Eds.), Serious games and edutainment applications: Volume II. (pp. 485-509). Springer International Publishing AG. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51645-5_22
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ashley Lear
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.