ITEd

The Role of Complex Software in Cognitive

Skill DevelopmentNhlanganiso Biyela, Thato Foko and Alan Amory

Centre for IT in Higher Education, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa

ITEd

Play

• Influences psychological, sociological, and intellectual developments (Vygotsky, 1933/1978; Rieber, 1996)

• Is an universally accepted mode of learning (Blanchard & Cheska, 1985)

• Intrinsically stimulate curiosity through (Thomas and Macredie, 1994)– Challenges and fantasy

(Malone 1980, 1981a,b) – Novelty and complexity

(Carroll, 1982; Malone, 1984; Malone & Lepper, 1987; Rivers, 1990)

ITEd

Play

• Influences learning through visualization, experimentation, and creativity (Betz, 1995)

• Supports development of critical thinking though:– Discovery and problem-solving

(Rieber, 1995)– Object manipulation

(Leutner, 1993) – Goal formation and competition

(Neal, 1990)

ITEd

Game Space

Play Exploration Challenges Engagement

Game Object Model

The Game Space object includes four motivational abstract interfaces: play, exploration, challenges, and engagement (Roberts, 1976; Malone 1980, 1981a,b; Blanchard & Cheska, 1985; Thomas & Macredie, 1994; Rieber, 1996).

ITEd

Game Space

Play Exploration Challenges Engagement

Game Object Model

Visualization SpaceCritical thinking Discovery Goal formation Goal completion Competition Practice Story-line

The Visualisation Space includes those interfaces related to cognitive activities such as critical thinking, discovery, goal formation, goal completion, competition, and practice (Rieber, 1995; Neal, 1990; Amory et al., 1999), and includes the concrete Story Line interface.

ITEd

Game Space

Play Exploration Challenges Engagement

Game Object Model

Visualization SpaceCritical thinking Discovery Goal formation Goal completion Competition Practice Story-line

GraphicsFun

SoundsTechnology

Elements Space

Actors Space DramaInteractionGestures The Elements Space object

includes the abstract interfaces of fun, and drama (Malone, 1981a,b) and concrete interfaces of graphics, sound, and technology (Amory et al., 1999) and actor interaction, and gesture (Stanislavski, 1981; Harrigan, 1999). The drama, interaction, and gesture interfaces are part of the Actor Space object.

ITEd

Game Space

Play Exploration Challenges Engagement

Game Object Model

Visualization SpaceCritical thinking Discovery Goal formation Goal completion Competition Practice Story-line

GraphicsFun

SoundsTechnology

Elements Space

Actors Space DramaInteractionGestures

Reading Writing Speaking

Communication

Literacy Visual Logical Mathematical Computational

Memory Short-term Long-term

MotorManipulation Reflex

Problem Space

The Problem Space object includes manipulation, memory, logic, mathematics, and reflexes concrete interfaces (Betz, 1995; Amory et al., 1999) that support critical thinking, discovery, goal formation and completion, competition, and practice interfaces (Leutner, 1993; Quinn, 1994; Saljo, 1979; Schank & Cleary, 1995) of the Visualisation Space object.

ITEd

Educational Software Design

• Software engineering methodologies:– None – no product may emerge– Rigid – wrong product developed

• Newman and Lamming (1995) feedback system– “Situation of Concern” document

describes the current unsatisfactory state of the world that the software will attempt to solve [Why].

– Problem statement document• Users who will exploit the system [the Who], • Human activity that the system will support to satisfy the

situation of concern [the What], • Support provided by the system [the How], • Technology used to develop the system [the With].

– The Who and What used to defined a persona (characteristics of a fictitious user of the system).

ITEd

Educational Software Design

• But persona data– not built from real information

(either quantitative or qualitative) – cannot be subjected to vigorous

evaluations

ITEd

Game Space

Game Space

Visualization Space

Visualization Space

GraphicsFun

SoundsTechnology

Elements Space

Actors Space DramaInteractionGestures

Problem Space

Reading Writing Speaking

Communication

Literacy Visual Logical Mathematical Computational

Memory Short-term Long-term

MotorManipulation Reflex

Play Exploration Challenges Engagement

Critical thinking Discovery Goal formation Goal completion Competition Practice Story-line

Personal Outlining Model

GOM

2D to 3D conversion

Persona

Properties

LiteracyVisual

2D Visualization3D Visualization

LogicalMathematical

CommunicationReadingWriting

AgeSexOccupationEducation

POM

ITEd

Method

• Instrument– Literacy (visual and logical+mathematical) skills– Communication (reading and writing) skills

• Groups– Senior school children

• No exposure to digital video games (n=55)• Played γKhozi for more than 20h (n=51)

– Humanities undergraduates (n=30) – Science undergraduates (n=30)– Geography undergraduates

• No exposure to GIS (n=20)• Used GIS for 1 semester (n=20)

ITEd

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6

%

Results - Reading

1. School 2. School + game 3. Humanities 4. Science 5. Geography 6. Geography + GIS

ITEd

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6

%

Results - Writing

1. School 2. School + game 3. Humanities 4. Science 5. Geography 6. Geography + GIS

ITEd

Results - 2D Visualization

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6

%

1. School 2. School + game 3. Humanities 4. Science 5. Geography 6. Geography + GIS

ITEd

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6

%

Results - 3D Visualization

1. School 2. School + game 3. Humanities 4. Science 5. Geography 6. Geography + GIS

ITEd

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6

%

Results - 2D-3D Visualization

1. School 2. School + game 3. Humanities 4. Science 5. Geography 6. Geography + GIS

ITEd

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6

%

Results – Logical & Mathematical

1. School 2. School + game 3. Humanities 4. Science 5. Geography 6. Geography + GIS

ITEd

Conclusions

• School children playing γKhozi outperformed those that had no exposure to this educational game

• Science undergraduates performed better than those from the humanities

• Humanities students exposed to GIS performed best

• University undergraduate participants performed better than the groups of senior school children

• Participants working in teams were able to solve complex problems with greater ease that those who worked alone

• Active viewers/participants’ and make their own meaning