Understanding Engagement within the Context of a Safety Critical Game

Abstract

One of the most frequent arguments for deploying serious games is that they provide an engaging format for student learning. However, engagement is often equated with enjoyment, which may not be the most relevant conceptualization in safety-critical settings, such as law enforcement and healthcare. In these contexts, the term 'serious' does not only relate to the non-entertainment purpose of the game but also the environment simulated by the game. In addition, a lack of engagement in a safetycritical training setting can have serious ethical implications, leading to significant real-world impacts. However, evaluations of safety-critical games (SCGs) rarely provide an in-depth consideration of player experience. Thus, in relation to simulation game-based training, we are left without a clear understanding of what sort of experience players are having, what factors influence their engagement and how their engagement relates to learning. In order to address these issues, this paper reports on the mixed-method evaluation of a SCG that was developed to support police training. The findings indicate that engagement is supported by the experience situational relevance, due to the player's experience of real-world authenticity, targeted feedback mechanisms and learning challenges.

Systematic Review and Validation of the Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ) – Implications for Citation and Reporting Practice

“…Altogether 515 papers were identified, although only 147 explicitly referred to the GEQ, with the earliest having been published in 2008. Upon closer analysis, 74 were excluded due to one of the following reasons: (i) Variants of the GEQ (In-game GEQ, Post GEQ, Social Presence in Gaming Questionnaire (SPGQ), KidsGEQ) rather than the core GEQ were employed (e.g., [20]); (ii) The GEQ dimensions were only used to inform the development of the authors' own instrument (e.g., [39]); (ii) The GEQ was claimed to be used but no results were reported (e.g., [36]); (iii) The GEQ was cited but another instrument was actually used (e.g., [64]); (iv) The paper was a duplicate (i.e., same study, same sample), though with a different title (e.g., [17]). In this case, only the earliest publication was included.…”

Co-created evaluation: Identifying how games support police learning

“… Learner attitudes towards game-based learning (see Appendix 3)  Learner engagement when interacting with the game e.g. through a short version of the Game Experience Questionnaire (see Hart et al 2017)…”

“…This combined a Randomised Control Trial (RCT) that used a mixture of existing game evaluation questionnaires along with a co-created Tricky Topic knowledge-based quiz (see Appendix 1 & 2). Researcher-led evaluation questionnaires consisted of Player Experience (PX) and User Experience (UX) questionnaires (see Hart et al 2017) that captured player engagement and the overall user experience of interacting with the game-based tool.…”

“…Finally, researcher-led focus groups and in-depth interview proformas elicited further feedback from participants about their learning experiences. The findings relating to engagement are presented in Hart, et al (2017), in this paper we focus on the role of co-created learning evaluations. The co-created and researcher-led questions produced learning evaluation data through a triangulated understanding gained from combining quantitative with qualitative data.…”

“…An in-depth analysis was conducted on the qualitative interview data with a focus on engagement (Hart, et al 2017). This paper includes a further analysis in relation to triangulating and verifying the Tricky Topics of Rapport and Interview Technique.…”