Extended Taxonomy of Design and Innovation Games to Identify Perspectives of Development and Evaluation

Abstract

Learning innovation and design process is a necessity of the coming decade and games are a potential tool to do so. This paper proposes an extended taxonomy for categorising innovation and design games. The intent is to understand the essential, the similar and the different categories not only for development, but also for evaluation of innovation and design games, and in turn, help educators identify appropriate games for their learning objectives and curricula.

Gamification of design thinking: a way to enhance effectiveness of learning

“…Gamification can overcome significant problems like lack of learner's motivation, lack of interactivity, or isolation, leading to a high dropout rate in a course (Khalil and Ebner, 2014). The purpose of gamification can be served only when both the following are satisfied: (a) the Learning Objectives and outcomes are well defined; and (b) efforts are spent to assess the effect of gamification on those learning outcomes (Morschheuser et al, 2018;Bhatt et al, 2021b). Various empirical studies show that gamification has a positive effect on student interest, early engagement (Betts et al, 2013), and learning outcomes (e.g., retention rate) (Vaibhav and Gupta, 2014;Krause et al, 2015).…”

“…Kirkpatrick's model consists of four levels of evaluation: reaction, learning, behavior, and result. With the help of this model, Bhatt et al (2021b) analyzed 20 games and classified them based on the levels of evaluation, and found that some existing games were not evaluated for their effectiveness on both learning and engagement. For example, the PDP game (Becker and Wits, 2014) and Innopoly (Berglund et al, 2011) only measure the effect of the game on learning but do not measure its ability to engage participants.…”

“…In addition, the assessment of learning in schools often focus on memory-based learning and testing a students’ ability to reproduce content knowledge (National Education Policy India, 2016). Moreover, in classrooms, learning is receptive (where the teacher demonstrates, describes, or writes the teaching content and information is passed one way), and the assignments are typically solved individually (Bhatt et al , 2021 a ). This inhibits the development of collaboration and communication skills in students.…”

“…Affinity for teamwork is one of the characteristics of DT that enables communication as described by Owen (2005). With the use of Bloom's taxonomy, Bhatt et al (2021 a ) identified the association between the instructions, that are used in performing design thinking activities, and the cognitive processes. The results showed that following the instructions while performing design activities enabled higher-level cognitive processes such as applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating; these can lead to the development of 21st-century skills.…”

“…However, in India, the importance of these skills has been emphasized only very recently [e.g., in the draft National Education Policy, India, 2019 (National Education Policy, 2019)], at a time, when the current Indian education system is under serious criticism because of outdated curricula and teaching methodology. In South Asian context, a large part of the school education system puts greater emphasis on the retention of knowledge, leaving less scope for the development of skills such as creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving (Bhatt et al , 2021 a ). In addition, the assessment of learning in schools often focus on memory-based learning and testing a students’ ability to reproduce content knowledge (National Education Policy India, 2016).…”