Introduction
Within the last two decades, the paramedic profession has transformed employment models, education requirements and introduced blended and online delivery modes (Batt, Knox, Delport, & Acker, 2019; Lord, 2003; Oliveri, 2019).
Modification of content, pedagogies and technologies used to deliver curriculum is necessary to ensure students not employed within the industry understand the situated context for their learning (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Lord, 2003; Oliveri, 2019).
This document outlines a curriculum area with high failure rates despite significant pedagogical changes, a proposed educational game to improve student success rates and justification of game design to achieve the desired goal.
Problem characteristics
Learning outcome: Use appropriate medical terminology and drug therapy calculations.
Industry-standard pass mark: 100 per cent.
Cohort (audience) characteristics breakdown
- Age 17 – 50 years.
- Gender split 60% female.
- High student numbers with:
- Low socioeconomic status
- Rural/regional backgrounds
- First Nations peoples
- First in family to attend university (CQUniversity, 2019).
Lecturers traditionally taught the drug calculation component via live-action role play (LARPs). Substituting an online video lecture and maths tutorial as the pedagogy has failed to achieve desired results. As LARPs and the video medium are natural precursors to the digital game, and no definitive discipline research could be found, it seemed a natural progression to combine these within a digital simulation-style game (Becker, 2011; Bhatt, Christie, Mathur, Badurek, & Morton, 2016; Liu, Cheng, & Huang, 2011).
Platform choice
The platform for the development of the prototype learning game (Calculate for their lives), is Kahoot. The platform afforded greater learning design control through its natural progression structure. This progression ensures industry accreditation requirements and the learning outcome were satisfied. The simple to learn platform provided a non-reliance on technologists and afforded the inclusion of critical elements such as feedback mechanisms, points systems, leaderboards and team or individual play modes essential to satisfying a cross-section of gamer types. The style of play also favoured women who are a significant demographic within the cohort (Foster & Shah, 2020; Golding, 2014; Jesper, 2002; Westwood, Griffiths, & Networking, 2010; Wood, Griffiths, Chappell, & Davies, 2004).
Game Design
Game control, flow and narrative
Kahoot offers little player choice in control of game flow or customisation. To accommodate players who value these affordances, the learning design included player choice wherever possible. For example, the ability for the player to choose their nickname, along with the option to select a team or individual mode of play, formed part of the pedagogical strategy. The use of 360-degree video questions within the game also allowed players a choice of point of view (POV) along with a degree of immersion within the narrative (Gee, 2009; Liu et al., 2011; Westwood et al., 2010).
Sample 360 degree video question
While gameplay flow is restricted by a progression structure, engagement is maintained by scaffolding the difficulty between levels. Players progress from the no-penalty (no points) non-timed tutorial level where the simple play control skills are developed, to harder practice through expert levels. This progression structure mirrors within the narrative (Chee Siang, Avni, & Zaphiris, 2008; Gee, 2009; Markey & Leeder, 2011).
With Kahoot offering the ability to include video from the lobby and throughout questions, the learning designer introduced a cohesive video narrative to provide a situated context. The game begins with the intern entering their new workplace in the lobby.
Lobby introduction video
The story builds, culminating in the final level where the player is immersed in a 360-degree microworld. This strong abstraction of reality includes loud two-way radio traffic, emotive subject matter and safe emergency driving practices within a time-constrained environment which allows the authentic application of learning (Adams, 2009; Arntfield, Slesar, Dickson, & Charon, 2013; Becker, 2011; Hiwiller, 2020; Kapp, 2012; Koster, 2014; Whitton, 2009).
Sample question style for final level
Feedback mechanisms, Points system, checkpoints
Within the game, the learning designer used audio and visual feedback mechanisms to engage the player and maintain interest. The cues allowed learners to check their responses and learn the correct answer before proceeding to the next level/question. This formative feedback is crucial as each level built on the previous. Music was also used as a mechanism to create urgency in time-constrained problems, further gamifying the learning environment (Adams, 2009; Kapp, 2012; Whitton, 2009).
Kahoot also afforded the designer the ability to include a reward system in the form of points and leaderboard. The introduction of points following the tutorial level promotes engagement and investment with a cross-section of player types who have an exterior locus of control, or who like to use them as a self-checking mechanism. While no ability to save a game exists, players can track progress and point totals following each question. The point system culminates in a leaderboard again encouraging engagement for hardcore online gamers who work best when competing externally (Gee, 2003; Hiwiller, 2020; Kapp, 2012; King, Delfabbro, & Griffiths, 2010; Turkay, Hoffman, Kinzer, Chantes, & Vicari, 2014; Westwood et al., 2010; Whitton, 2009).
Play mode
Both team and individual modes of play are included within the pedagogy to support differing player types. Team mode play engages social and casual gamer types who are not motivated by leaderboards or points systems (Kapp, 2012; King et al., 2010; Westwood et al., 2010).
Decision-making process
Choice of multi-media, technologies and platform followed an iterative and TPACK framework to create a strong abstraction of reality and microworld for players (Hiwiller, 2020; Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Conclusion
While no discipline-specific research can be found, the game prototype is based on sound design principles and forms a base for further study. Further refinement of elements, along with industry, academic and user consultation will occur prior to releasing a pilot program.
References
Adams, S. S. (2009). What games have to offer: information behavior and meaning-making in virtual play spaces. Library Trends, 57(4), 676. doi:10.1353/lib.0.0058
Arntfield, S. L., Slesar, K., Dickson, J., & Charon, R. (2013). Narrative medicine as a means of training medical students toward residency competencies. Patient Education and Counseling, 91(3), 280-286. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.01.014
Batt, A. M., Knox, S., Delport, S., & Acker, J. (2019). Degrees of change: opportunities and obstactles for paramedic degree education. Retrieved from http://alanbatt.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/201907-Paramedic-Degrees.pdf
Becker, K. (2011). Distinctions between games and learning: A review of current literature on games in education. In Gaming and Simulations: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications (pp. 75-107). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global.
Bhatt, J., Christie, D., Mathur, R., Badurek, C., & Morton, M. (2016). A game-based learning approach to infromation literacy (White Paper). https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/185592/Game-Based-Learning-white-paper.pdf
Chee Siang, A., Avni, E., & Zaphiris, P. (2008). Linking pedagogical theory of computer games to their usability. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 533-558.
CQUniversity. (2019). Annual Report. Retrieved from https://www.cqu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/82671/CQUniversity-2018-Annual-Report.pdf
Foster, A., & Shah, M. (2020). Principles for advancing game-based learning in teacher education. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 36(2), 84-95. doi:10.1080/21532974.2019.1695553
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in entertainment, 1(1).
Gee, J. P. (2009). Games, learning, and 21st century survival skills. Journal For Virtual Worlds Research, 2(1). doi:10.4101/jvwr.v2i1.623
Golding, D. (2014). The end of gamers. Retrieved from https://dangolding.tumblr.com/post/95985875943/the-end-of-gamers
Hiwiller, Z. (2020). Players making decisions : game design essentials and the art of understanding your players (Second edition. ed.). San Francisco, California: Peachpit Press.
Jesper, J. (2002). Computer games and digital cultures : conference proceedings, Tampere, Finland 6-8 June 2002. In F. Mäyrä (Ed.), Studies in information sciences (pp. 323-329). Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction game-based methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
King, D., Delfabbro, P., & Griffiths, M. (2010). Video Game Structural Characteristics: A New Psychological Taxonomy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8(1), 90-106. doi:10.1007/s11469-009-9206-4
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 60-70.
Koster, R. (2014). A theory of fun for game design.
Liu, C.-C., Cheng, Y.-B., & Huang, C.-W. (2011). The effect of simulation games on the learning of computational problem solving. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1907-1918. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.002
Lord, B. (2003). The development of a degree qualification for paramedics at Charles Sturt University. Journal of Emergency Primary Health Care, 1(1-2). doi:10.33151/ajp.1.1.40
Markey, K., & Leeder, C. (2011). Students’ behaviour playing an online information literacy game. (2), 46-65%V 45. doi:10.11645/5.2.1637
Oliveri, L. (2019). Student perceptions of a blended learning approach to paramedic education.
Turkay, S., Hoffman, D., Kinzer, C. K., Chantes, P., & Vicari, C. (2014). Toward understanding the potential of games for learning: Learning theory, game design characteristics, and situating video games in classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 31(1/2), 2-22. doi:10.1080/07380569.2014.890879
Westwood, D., Griffiths, M. D. J. C., Behavior,, & Networking, S. (2010). The role of structural characteristics in video-game play motivation: A Q-methodology study. 13(5), 581-585.
Whitton, N. (2009). Learning with digital games : A practical guide to engaging students in higher education. London, UNITED KINGDOM: Routledge.
Wood, R. T., Griffiths, M. D., Chappell, D., & Davies, M. (2004). The structural characteristics of video games: A psycho-structural analysis. Journal of Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 7(1), 1-10.
