Cognitive Walkthrough for

Learning Through Game Mechanics

David Farrell & David MoffatGlasgow Caledonian University

Key Messages

•We should be adapting tools, such as Cognitive Walkthrough to support serious game designers.

•It’s hard to make good GBL

Information and animations for junior and senior pupils across

Europe.

Lesson packs for teachers in junior and

senior schools.

a game to teach junior pupils

a game to teach senior pupils

K. Squire & Civ III

D. W. Shaffer & Soda

War on Terror Sweatshop

Cognitive Walkthrough

•A HCI technique, well established in UI design and evaluation.

•Instead of relying on pure instinct, CW offers cognitive scaffolding.

Typical CW

•Stage 1: “Defining Inputs”

•describe users

•describe task

•describe system•list each action required to complete task

Typical CW

•Stage 2: “Walkthrough”

•1: Will user try to achieve effect?

•4: If correct action performed, will user notice progress towards solution?

•3: Will user associate correct action with the desired effect?

•2: Will user notice correct action available?

CW and Serious Games

•UI design is not unique in the requirement of the designer to ‘imagine’ the user’s brain

•All interaction design requires the designer to simulate how someone else will think

•This is also true of game design.

•This is important in GBL

Bespoke CWs

•There are many viable GBL pedagogies

•Whatever the underlying theory, there is a risk translating that theory, through design into game implementation.

•To be useful, a CW should map to pedagogy

CWLTGM

•Stage 1: “Defining Inputs”

•describe users

•describe task

•describe system

•list each action required to complete task

CWLTGM

•Stage 1: “Defining Inputs”

•describe players

•describe task

•describe system

•list each action required to complete task

CWLTGM

•Stage 1: “Defining Inputs”

•describe players

•describe desired learning outcome

•describe system

•list each action required to complete task

CWLTGM

•Stage 1: “Defining Inputs”

•describe players

•describe desired learning outcomes

•describe how game entities & behaviours map to subject-domain

•list each action required to complete task

CWLTGM

•Stage 1: “Defining Inputs”

•describe players

•describe desired learning outcomes

•describe how game entities & behaviours map to subject-domain

•list actions required that are assumed to support learning

CWLTGM•Stage 2: “Walkthrough”

•1: Will user try to achieve effect?

•2: Will user notice correct action available?

•3: Will user associate correct action with the desired effect?

•4: If correct action performed, will user notice progress towards solution?

CWLTGM•Stage 2: “Walkthrough”

•1: Will user attempt the game task?

•2: Will user notice correct action available?

•3: Will user associate correct action with the desired effect?

•4: If correct action performed, will user notice progress towards solution?

CWLTGM

•Stage 2: “Walkthrough”

•1: Will user attempt the game task?

•2: Will user understand which in-game actions might achieve the task goal?

•3: Will user associate correct action with the desired effect?

•4: If correct action performed, will user notice progress towards solution?

CWLTGM•Stage 2: “Walkthrough”

•1: Will user attempt the game task?

•2: Will user understand which in-game actions might achieve the task goal?

•3: Will user associate correct action with the progress towards game task completion?

•4: If correct action performed, will user notice progress towards solution?

CWLTGM•Stage 2: “Walkthrough”

•1: Will user attempt the game task?

•2: Will user understand which in-game actions might achieve the task goal?

•3: Will user associate correct action with the progress towards game task completion?

•4: If correct action performed, can we expect learning to take place?

Step 4 of Walkthrough

•In the less successful area of the game, I identified 9 separate logical links required

Findings

•Of these only 3 appeared safe

•Applying CWLTGM in this capacity offered reasonable explanation of confusing results

Conclusion•Gap between best pedagogical theory

and ‘day to day’ game design

•Too much depends on designer instinct and intuitive simulation of users’ mental model•CW is a general purpose tool, not restricted to UI design, that can help structure this process

•We will need bespoke CWs depending on pedagogy

Future Work

•More analyses of (un)successful games with this process

•Using CWLTGM during design process

Questions?

•I’d love to hear from anyone interested!

•david.farrell@gcu.ac.uk