Instructional Design – Part II - Ontario Tech U · Instructional Design – Part II Friday, March 16 2012 Bill Kapralos Overview (1): Before We Begin Administrative details Determining

CSCI 5530: Serious Games Development (Simulations and Serious Games)

1

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

CSCI 5530, Winter 2012 Bill Kapralos

Winter 2012

Instructional Design – Part IIFriday, March 16 2012

Bill Kapralos

Overview (1):Before We Begin

Administrative details

Determining Project Goals Through Analysis

Summary

Instructional Design

Gamified simulation design

Overview

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Systemic design of instruction

Overview (1):Combining Instructional Design with

Game/Simulation Design

Overview

Beware of the decorative media trap

Synergy → serious game design

Serious games design guidelines


2

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Administrative Details (1):

Required Course Presentations

Two presentations for each one officially enrolled in the

course

Papers were assigned last week and also available via

the course website for those not giving presentations

First presentations will take place next week (March 23,

2012) during the regularly scheduled lecture

Administrative Details (2):

Final Course Projects

Build upon your mid-term assignment

Determining Project Goals Through Analysis (cont.)


3

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Task Analysis (1):Summary

Essentially what instructional designers are doing is

formulating a list of the steps that must be taken to

perform the job correctly under all circumstances

described in the objectives

Task analysis not only clarifies the steps to be taught,

it also describes actions of game in great detail

Describes situations to be simulated, variables that

will effect gameplay, and the relative degree of that

effect

Task Analysis (2):Summary (cont.)

Solid research into the content of a serious game can be

broken down into two types of analyses

Needs analysis

Task analysis

Both of the above can be broken down further →

won’t be discussed further here…


To conduct a needs analysis

Identify subject matter experts, master performers,

and experienced practitioners → experts in doing the

job and people doing the job right now

Formulate a hypothesis as to what performance

problem the game is trying to solve

Conduct interviews, collect data to verify hypothesis

or adjust it as needed

Determine the demographic of target learners

Report findings and obtain approval to continue

analysis


4

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos


To conduct a task analysis

Continue interviews with master performers and

experienced practitioners

Determine detailed steps in each task of the desired

behavior

Determine criteria for correct performance

Provide case studies

Document findings in a task list that will guide the

writers and game designers

Instructional Design

Gamified Simulation Design (1):Process Overview

Needs analysis → choose objective or message/premise

Research and preparation

Describe the original system

Identify the observable elements

Gather data

Design phase

Interface design

Gameplay and game mechanics

Program structure

Evaluation of the design


5

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Gamified Simulation Design (2):Process Overview (cont.)

Design documents (pre-programming) → production of

the conceptual model

Programming phase → production of the operational

model

Final testing

Play testing phase

Post-mortem

Gamified Simulation Design (3):

Process Overview (cont.)

Overview (1):Serious Games Design Must Begin with Game

Design

The process of designing a serious game requires

literacy in simulation/game design, and

education/instructional design but it must begin with

game design → forms the backbone

In this course we are concerned with instructional

design → game design won’t be covered here

But isn’t this contradictory to what I mentioned last

week → depends on who you speak to!


6

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Overview (2):What is Instructional Design (ID) ?

The process of creating instruction through the analysis

of learning needs and the systemic development of

learning materials

Both formal and informal approaches

Here we will examine several major ID models and

this will be followed by a discussion of how these

models can be applied to serious games

The Clark-Kozma (long-standing) debate

Considers the impact of the medium on learning →

one side claims that the medium is merely a vehicle

for delivery of instruction and the other claims it isn’t

Overview (3):What is Instructional Design (ID) ? (cont.)

The Clark-Kozma (long-standing) debate (cont.)

In other words → one side claims that it makes no

difference to the learning whether you use a lecture,

textbook, or the simulation while the other side says it

does make a difference

This “medium affecting the message” debate is quite

old → Socrates complained that learning to write

would diminish the memory capacity of his students



Clark still claims that the medium still makes no

difference despite the huge changes in technology

that have occurred

One of the consequences of this view of the medium

being little more than the vehicle by which learning

can be delivered → most ID models, particularly

those developed in the last century, fail to include the

medium as an integral part of the design and the

choice of medium and its development happens near

the end of the exercise in commonly used models


7

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos



In some cases, development of instructional

materials, which is the place where the medium

comes in, appears almost as an afterthought → this

gives the impression that it has a similar importance

e.g., like the choice of color scheme on a website

Such an approach can’t lead to designs that take full

advantage of what the medium has to offer

We will look at some common ID models and then see

how they can be integrated into the design model that

takes the medium into account

Bloom’s Taxonomy (1):Classification Model

Concentrates on the instruction from the learner’s

perspective rather than the instruction itself as other

examples/models do

Categorizes learning into six main areas that follow an

approximate progression of complexity and higher

thinking involvement → simple memorization to critical

evaluation

Key aspects of this model

Inclusion of example keywords that can be used to

describe various activities and requirements of

learning and instruction in each of the categories

Bloom’s Taxonomy (2):Classification Model (cont.)


8

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Systemic Design of Instruction (1):Prescriptive Approaches

Particularly popular in corporate training and human

resource development given that the learning needs to

be specific

Often the case that it is easier to track development

using a highly structured model

Can lead to a greater accountability both in terms of

development and evaluation of effectiveness

As a result, considerable effort has gone into creating

models that can be used to create instruction that

structured and systemic → most fall under the

general heading of Instructional System Design (ISD)

Systemic Design of Instruction (2):The ADDIE Model

Taking the systemic approach to instructional design

was strongly influenced by development of systemic

approaches to software design in the 1970s

Gained popularity with the US Army’s “Interactive

Procedures for Instructional Systems Development”

→ advocated “the application of modern technology

to the fullest degree possible” although this seems to

have been “lost in translation” for many ID models

that have adopted only the parts of the have “high

level overview”

High level model came to be known as ADDIE

Systemic Design of Instruction (3):The ADDIE Model (cont.)

ADDIE → analysis, design, development,

implementation, and evaluation

Over-simplified model but still remains popular in

professional training

Five parts to the ADDIE model

Analysis → analyze the performance environment in

order to understand it and then describe the goals

needed in order to correct any performance

deficiencies (identify training requirements)

Design a process to achieve your goals, or in other

words → correct the performance deficiencies


9

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos


Five parts to the ADDIE model (cont.)

Development → develop your initial discoveries and

process into a product that will assist the learners into

becoming performers (in training, this product is often

called courseware)

Implementation → implement by delivering the

courseware to the learners.

Evaluation → evaluate the performers, courseware,

and audit-trail throughout the four phases and in the

working environment to ensure it is achieving the

desired results


Problem with a “strict” application of this model

Implies a linear progression of the process that does

not encourage adequate ongoing reflection of the

design as it is being developed since evaluation part

is at the end of the process• Variant was developed to

address this → indicates importance of ongoing evaluation much more clearly but model still remains too generic for direct application


Revised version


10

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Systemic Design of Instruction (7):Dick and Carey Systems Approach Model

Popular model that could be an effective aid in the

design of instruction → especially if design team

includes novice designers or diverse team members

Linear model and follows a set of similar steps as ADDIE

But it includes revision throughout the process → but

still places media near end of the process

Systemic Design of Instruction (8):

Dick and Carey

Systems Approach

Model

Systemic Design of Instruction (9):Morrison, Ross, and Kemp Model

Shifts focus from a linear development process to one

that is more systemic

Part of the idea is that the planning and revision

“phases” should permeate through the design

process → important shift!

But model still implies certain linearity in the design

that places the actual design of the medium near end


11

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Systemic Design of Instruction (9):Morrison, Ross, and Kemp Model (cont.)

Systemic Design of Instruction (9):Morrison, Ross, and Kemp Model (cont.)

Challenge of designing learning using modern media

The medium must really be an integral part of the

design process right from the beginning

Explicit demands of the medium must be an explicit

part of the process in any design model used → not

doing so is like designing a house without

consideration for its location or materials used

Systemic Design of Instruction (10):Commonalities Amongst Models

Most ID models include many of the same fairly specific

elements and basically all include the five basic

elements of the ADDIE model

Most times, the differences are related to the way the

sub-parts are categorized and the placement of the

“bubbles” and connectors in the visual representation

Although these differences may appear to be major,

the actual difference is related to organization rather

than content


12

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Systemic Design of Instruction (11):Commonalities Amongst Models (cont.)

Most contain the following five elements

Requirements → identifying what is needed from a

solution

Specification → description of what the solution must

do to meet the requirements

Design → describes how the solution will do what it

must do

Implementation → elaborates on the design and

translates it into a usable form

Testing → validation to demonstrate how well it does

what it is supposed to do

Systemic Design of Instruction (12):Commonalities Amongst Models (cont.)

Although all the models we looked at are complete and

usable, when put to practice, the application of the

model is rarely “clean”

Each phase is subject to influence from other phases

When the team includes experienced designers and

developers, they rarely follow a straightforward linear

progression

Systemic Design of Instruction (12):Agile Instructional Design

Basic idea is that it is emergent, adaptive, iterative, and

model-based → in the sense of creating prototypes

rather than in the sense of following prescriptive models

Agile (rapid) design → iterative and incremental

development where functional, even if incomplete

version of the solution should be created as soon as

possible

Prototype is the focus of the design process

Began in the early 1990s as a response to the

inefficiencies of the then standard approaches


13

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Systemic Design of Instruction (13):Agile Instructional Design (cont.)

Looks like a variation of the standard “waterfall” model

where each step follows sequentially from the last

But here, it is assumed that the last three “steps”

actually form a type of iterative loop that will go form

construction through use and testing, and installation

and maintenance repeatedly as product matures

Systemic Design of Instruction (14):Agile Instructional Design (cont.)

Also happens to be one of the most common models in

game design (and software development)

Some form of limited prototype is expected early in

the design/development phase → development

typically proceeds with feedback from testing the

prototype which continually evolves

Combining Instructional Design with Simulation

and Game Design


14

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Overview (1):Commercial Game Design

Often built up from a single core idea

Some activity or premise that the designer finds

amusing or entertaining → since purely for

entertainment, no further justification is necessary

Unlike entertainment games, simulations are built up to

answer a question or to provide an experience

Built up from identified performance gaps

No only are different design processes built up from

different initial motivations but the traditional or

accepted design and development models are also

different

Overview (2):Commercial Game Design (cont.)

Games → focus on providing an entertaining player

experience

Game designers approach their task from the

perspective of the content that needs to be delivered

Instruction → largely focused on content

Simulations → typically concerned with accuracy

Simulation designers are in between game design

and instruction design → their motivation is to answer

a question or provide an experience

Designer of serious games requires an appropriate

blend of game design and instructional design

Overview (3):Commercial Game Design (cont.)

Game, simulation, and instructional design comparison


15

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Overview (4):Combining Instruction and Game Design

Serious game design requires a synergy between

instructional design and game design

Seemingly opposed approaches that have radically

different histories

How do we combine them → we don’t, at least as

long as the game is viewed as the “instructional

material” rather than being an integral part of the

entire process

Since focus is on serious games (educational games)

→ educational aspect must be primary consideration

Overview (5):Combining Instruction and Game Design (cont.)

When developing a serious game, design must begin

with identified performance gap that needs addressing

Possible that this gap could encompass a broad

domain → sometimes designer has freedom to

choose some premise or problem within a given

domain while other times the need will be specific

Identified gap should influence all subsequent design

decisions → no point in developing something, no

matter how good it is, unless it is likely to fill the gap

Ability to address identified gap should be one of the

elements that determines whether it is good

Overview (6):Combining Instruction and Game Design (cont.)

May be useful to allow certain amount of parallel design

to occur provided each “side” remains in relatively close

communication with each other → instruction design and

game design

Game designers focus on player/user experience

Instructional designers focus on defining the

objectives and ways to determine what success will

look like → what can who has learned X do or know ?

Proceeding in parallel ensures each side is able to

influence the other in positive ways


16

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Beware the Decorative Media Trap (1):First Impressions are Important

First impressions of simulations and serious games are

often formed based on what we see when we go to the

host website or when we start up the application

For games particularly, designers generally do a good

job in making them “look nice” → but in many cases,

the promise implied by the visual appeal is not fulfilled

by the content

The decorative media trap happens when a design

makes use of the decorative media principle but does

not reinforce this with substance → first impressions

are not enough!

Beware the Decorative Media Trap (2):First Impressions are Important (cont.)

“Decorating” with visuals can be useful and effective at

times → can help learners form connections by providing

visual “tags” upon which to hang ideas and facts

This works well for instruction delivered via “print

material” and even websites when the website is

organized as “print transferred online”

Beware the Decorative Media Trap (3):First Impressions are Important, But…

Decorative media does not transfer to fully interactive

media, especially simulations and games

Typically will result in a game that is little more than

for a “wrapper” for the instructional materials →

sometimes it doesn’t even do that!

Consider the following… (page 255 of textbook)


17

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Synergy: SeriousGame Design (1):

Overview

Synergy: Serious Game Design (2):Phase One: Discovery

Includes all needs analyses and rough outlines needed

to place remainder of project in its proper context

Majority of instructional strategy should be done

before development starts but process of defining

instructional strategy continues into design phase

You should know enough about the gap you’re trying

to address in order to be confident that the serious

game is an appropriate way to address it

Should also identify any major limitations on the

eventual solution → e.g., whether or not solution will

be made available on web or on a particular device

Synergy: Serious Game Design (3):Phase One: Discovery (cont.)

The Users

You probably already know as much as you need to

know regarding the learners but if not, then you should

find out before start of design process

Identification of main objective and premise

Of course, this goes together with writing the

instructional performance objectives

At the end of the Discovery Phase you should have

Good understanding of who you are doing this for

How they will get what they need

How you will know when they got it


18

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Synergy: Serious Game Design (4):Phase Two: Research and Preparation

Gathering of materials and facts

Define limitations of solution

Outline original system(s) you will use as the basis for

your simulation

Research and preparation is not normally found in

most instructional design models

Synergy: Serious Game Design (5):Phase Three: Design

Where the simulation/serious game will take shape

Important to maintain connections between the

overarching goals which are instructional and the

gameplay

Not necessary for every aspect of the sim/serious game

to further the instructional objectives

But it is necessary that they coincide often enough

that time spent on sim/serious game is time well spent

Synergy: Serious Game Design (6):Phase Four: Conceptual Model

Typically not found in most instructional design models

but is essential when designing sims/serious games

Effectively last stage where it will be feasible to “back up”

for major revisions if major problems are detected

Has been said that 50% of any software design

project should be spent on the design phase before

any serious code gets written

Outcomes of this phase → detailed design document

Should include → design elements of sim/ game and

checkpoints needed to ensure solution has good

likelihood of delivering its instructional goals


19

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Synergy: Serious Game Design (7):Phase Four: Conceptual Model (cont.)

Last point where you can reasonably expect to correct

problems that relate to issues of validation which have to

do with the accuracy of the models you are using

You should not proceed beyond this stage unless you

are sure you have all the facts straight!

Synergy: Serious Game Design (8):Phase Five: Operational Model

Here, the programmers will do most of their work and the

artists will complete their work

Artists will have likely completed most of their work in

the Conceptual Phase → here they will fill in any gaps

they may have left over from the last phase

Non-technical role members → will oversee

developments to ensure they remain “on message”

and that the instructional goals remain in focus for

everyone

Serious Game Design Guidelines (1):Remain Agile

Don’t follow any model as if it were the last word for the

design process

You must always be prepared to revise and review →

not only the thing you are designing but also your

approach to the design itself

Example → no need to start a comprehensive needs

analysis if one has already been done recently or if

you already know the gap that needs to be addressed


20

Winter 2012

Bill Kapralos

Serious Game Design Guidelines (2):Multitask

Often possible to proceed with various parts in parallel

Example → you can be working on validation at the

same time as you are developing parts of the

prototype

Serious Game Design Guidelines (3):Prioritize

Don’t be too ambitious with your design goals

As you develop list of learning objectives

Be sure to categorize them so you will know which

ones are essential, which ones are “nice to have”, and

which are “deluxe”

Focus your resources and energies on the essentials

Don’t create more than about three classifications or

you may end up spending time organizing and re-

organizing your “wish” list

As time progresses and as resources begin to run out

→ you must be prepared to remove items from list

Serious Game Design Guidelines (4):Beware the Decorative Media Trap

Ensure you have appropriate balance between how

many resources you are devoting to appearance of

sim/serious game and those you are spending on the

content and interaction

Don’t forget the content and interaction!!

Documents

Instructional Design – Part II - Ontario Tech U · Instructional Design – Part II Friday, March 16 2012 Bill Kapralos Overview (1): Before We Begin Administrative details Determining