Overall Course ThemesThis course deals with aspects of the design process that are sometimes neglected. To design an instructional game well, you must be both systematic and intuitive, analytic and artistic. In mastering the ISD process, you've learned to handle the cognitive side of instruction (which, almost by definition, is the most important). In EDTEC 670, you'll also learn to deal with the affective side of instruction. Throughout the course we'll be addressing the questions: What makes some activities interesting or fun? How can we maximize enjoyment without sacrificing instructional quality? It's a difficult and fascinating challenge for any instructional designer. A second major theme of the course involves the design of simulations. The questions that will dominate the second half of the course are these: How do we represent reality in a simulation? How do we balance simplicity, efficiency, and playability against realism, richness and complexity? These, too, are challenging design tasks. ObjectivesUpon completing this course, you'll be able to:
Course Schedule
ReadingsThere are two required books for the course which may be ordered from Amazon by clicking on the link below.
Also: August/September 2005 issue of Innovate, Journal of Online Education. Barab, S., & Roth, W. (2006) Curriculum-based Ecosystems: Supporting Knowing from an Ecological Perspective. An additional set of readings is being prepared and will be available through SDSU Electronic Course Reserves. It includes the following articles: Models of Interest, Motivation, and Fun Csikszentmihalyi,
M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper & Row. Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (1988). Use of the ARCS motivation model in courseware design. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.). Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.). Aptitude, learning and instruction. Volume 3: Conative and affective process analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. In addition to the readings, you'll be making use of Cardboard Cognition, a resource created by previous generations of EDTEC 670 students. Cardboard Cognition is a compendium of dozens of educational card and board game designs. ToolsThe final deliverable for your egame project will be primarily a design document, not a working game. To test your interface ideas and illustrate your design, though, you will learn to use specialized software tools and, depending on the project you choose, learn to work within the strengths and limitations of one tool. The platform we'll be using this semester is:
All project documentation will be presented in the form of web pages and shared via the course web site. GradingYour final grade will be determined by your performance on the design of a board game, a MUVE game and an egame, your contributions to the class forums and glossary, and a quiz. There will be several e-game project opportunities to choose from. Each will involve the development of a computer-based prototype and a written analysis of its design from both instructional and motivational vantage points. Discussion contributions will be graded individually. All three design projects will be team efforts. Each individual on the team will be graded separately, though the overall performance of the team will have an influence over individual grades. It behooves you, therefore, to put some energy into team building in order to maximize everyone's success. The projects will be weighted as follows:
This is a graduate level course. Grading performance in an amorphous area like game design is not easy, but not impossible either. Please keep in mind the following definitions of grading standards from the SDSU Graduate Catalog:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||