Issuu on Google+

Aalborg University Copenhagen

Semester: 1 Title: Dansk Hverdag

Aalborg University Copenhagen A.C. Meyers VĂŚnge 15, 2450 Copenhagen SV, Denmark

Project period: 09/10/2015-18-12-2015 Semester theme: Designing from Both Sides of the Screen. Supervisor(s): Ali Adjorlu Project group no.: 12 Members: Anders Ipsen Jan Janiszewski Joakim Carlsen Mikkel Thynov Nicolai Grum Tobias Larsen

Secretary: Pia Skovlund Jensen Phone: 9940 2582 psj@staff.aau.dk

Abstract:

The purpose of this project is to produce a game that teaches refugees the Danish language, while giving them a great learning experience. Thousands of refugees come to Denmark each year and find it difficult educate or find a job, as they do not know the language. The game uses a teaching method called The Input Hypothesis and also focuses on motivating the player as the major parts for language teaching. The prototype has been evaluated and compared to a game currently used in language classes for refugees at LĂŚrdansk organisation. The results gained through qualitative and quantitative methods show that the current prototype does not meet the standards of the state of art, but it clearly shows potential. They also reveal that the major problem is that most of the participants found the controls difficult, which prevented them from properly using the game and therefore learning. For further development the game needs a clear tutorial that teaches people without basic computer skills how to control it. Furthermore it needs more levels with increasing difficulty and some more challenging elements, so the player can maintain the motivation.

Copies: Pages: 81 Finished: 18 december 2015

Copyright Š 2015. This report and/or appended material may not be partly or completely published or copied without prior written approval from the authors. Neither may the contents be used for commercial purposes without this written approval.


Table of content 1.

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6 1. 1. Initial problem statement ..................................................................................................... 6

2.

ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 7 2. 1. Introduction: ......................................................................................................................... 7 2. 2. Initial research interview ..................................................................................................... 7 2. 3. Target Group......................................................................................................................... 8 2. 4. The input hypothesis ............................................................................................................ 9 2. 5. Comprehensible output:..................................................................................................... 11 2. 6. Language Acquisition .......................................................................................................... 12 2. 7. Vocabulary by reading ........................................................................................................ 12 2. 8. Motivation .......................................................................................................................... 13 2. 9. Tangential Learning ............................................................................................................ 15 2. 10. Game Design Theories ...................................................................................................... 15 2. 10. 1. Genre ........................................................................................................................ 15 2. 10. 2. Storyline .................................................................................................................... 16 2. 11. Advantages of learning through games............................................................................ 16 2. 12. State of the art:................................................................................................................. 17 2. 13. Sub Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 19 2. 14. Final Problem statement .................................................................................................. 19 2. 15. Design requirements ........................................................................................................ 20

3. Design ......................................................................................................................................... 21 3. 1. Concept............................................................................................................................... 21 1


3. 2. Linear and nonlinear ........................................................................................................... 22 3. 3. Environment/World Design ................................................................................................ 22 3. 4. Colours ................................................................................................................................ 23 3. 5. Art style............................................................................................................................... 24 3. 6. Sounds ................................................................................................................................ 24 3. 7. Tasks ................................................................................................................................... 25 3. 8. Achievement System .......................................................................................................... 27 3. 9. Rewards .............................................................................................................................. 28 3. 10. Overall information design: .............................................................................................. 28 3. 11. Menu ................................................................................................................................ 29 3. 12. Intro (explanation of controls) ......................................................................................... 30 3. 13. The levels .......................................................................................................................... 30 3. 13. 1. Shopping Centre ....................................................................................................... 30 3. 14. The in-game menu:........................................................................................................... 31 4. Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 32 4. 1. Main Menu ......................................................................................................................... 32 4. 2. Pause Menu: ....................................................................................................................... 33 4. 3. Player Movement: .............................................................................................................. 34 4. 4. The bank and objects:......................................................................................................... 35 4. 5. Achievements and Task: ..................................................................................................... 36 4. 6. Sound Effects: ..................................................................................................................... 38 4. 7. Tools ................................................................................................................................... 40

2


4. 7. 1. Unity ........................................................................................................................... 40 4. 7. 2. SketchUp .................................................................................................................... 41 4. 7. 3. Maya ........................................................................................................................... 41 4. 8. Missing parts from the design ............................................................................................ 42 5. Evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 43 5. 1. Theory ................................................................................................................................. 44 5. 2. Participants ......................................................................................................................... 45 5. 3. Evaluation description ........................................................................................................ 45 5. 4. Word Test: .......................................................................................................................... 47 5. 5. Observation ........................................................................................................................ 47 5. 6. Questionnaire: .................................................................................................................... 48 5. 7. Focus group interview: ....................................................................................................... 48 5. 8. Evaluation results: .............................................................................................................. 49 5. 9. Quantitative data results: ................................................................................................... 50 5. 10. Qualitative data results: ................................................................................................... 50 5. 11. Content analysis of qualitative data: ................................................................................ 51 5. 12. Sub conclusion .................................................................................................................. 51 6. Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 52 6. 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 52 6. 2. Bias...................................................................................................................................... 52 6. 2. 1. Bias in participants...................................................................................................... 52 6. 2. 2. Bias in the game.......................................................................................................... 52 6. 2. 3. Bias in the test ............................................................................................................ 53 3


6. 2. 4. Bias in the questionnaire: ........................................................................................... 53 6. 3. Analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data............................................................... 53 6. 4. Meaning condensations of the qualitative data................................................................. 53 6. 5. How could we have done differently ................................................................................. 54 6. 5. 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 54 6. 5. 2. Words difference ........................................................................................................ 54 6. 6. Bugs and glitches ............................................................................................................ 54 6. 7. Participant’s skills ........................................................................................................... 55 6. 8. Room setup......................................................................................................................... 55 6. 9. Course of the test ............................................................................................................... 55 6. 10. Sub conclusion .................................................................................................................. 56 7. Re-Design:................................................................................................................................... 57 7. 1. Controls: ............................................................................................................................. 57 7. 2. Achievements, pause menu and new words learning........................................................ 58 7. 3. More Levels ........................................................................................................................ 59 7. 4. Challenging elements ......................................................................................................... 60 7. 5. ATM .................................................................................................................................... 60 8. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 61 9. Future works............................................................................................................................... 63 Reference ....................................................................................................................................... 64 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 68 Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................................. 68 Appendix 2 .................................................................................................................................. 69 Appendix 3 .................................................................................................................................. 70 4


Appendix 4 .................................................................................................................................. 71 Appendix 5 .................................................................................................................................. 72 Appendix 6 .................................................................................................................................. 74 Appendix 7 .................................................................................................................................. 76 Appendix 8 .................................................................................................................................. 78 Appendix 9 .................................................................................................................................. 80

5


1. Introduction In 2014 approximately 6,000 refugees moved to Denmark (Udlændingestyrelsen, 2015) to begin a new life. When they arrive it is obligatory for them to go through a long integration process (The Danish Immigration Service, 2015). A part of being integrated means learning the Danish language. They need a basic understanding of the language including a basic vocabulary to be able to work, live and be further educated in Denmark. It is always difficult to learn a new language and the refugees need all the help they can get to make it easier and more enjoyable. With today’s technology there is opportunity for different ways of teaching foreign languages. Games allow users to use the learned skills without the feeling of being forced to memorise, which motivates more than an instructional course or reading a book (Moursund, 2006). Especially the simulation game genre is good for learning games, as it takes inspiration, experience and the rules from the real world and applies them into a game (Novak, 2007). Using the great potential of games, learning languages could become more enjoyable and efficient (Kote & Vito, 2011). Duolingo is an example of a successful online tool for learning languages. According to Grego & Vesselinov (2012), it was the most efficient when teaching the basics of a language, but the efficiency lowered when dealing with more advanced topics. By looking at Duolingo’s success, it is clear that a learning game is a great tool to learn languages. A game could be a great way to introduce refugees to the Danish language as it might be a more enjoyable experience with no responsibility for failure as they can learn at their own pace.

1. 1. Initial problem statement “How can a learning game be a good way to teach refugees a basic range of words on which they could build up Danish language skills?”

6


2. ANALYSIS 2. 1. Introduction: In order to answer the problem statement, we need to gain knowledge about The learning of a second language. It is crucial, as the main purpose of the learning game is to teach and improve the learning for the players. The learning needs to be produced through a game, but creating a good game requires knowledge of how games work and how they are properly made. A properly made game should be able to motivate the learner to play it. Therefore the research of how a learner can be motivated must also be conducted. Lastly it is crucial to understand the target group, so the game can fit their needs as much as possible. All of these elements will be a part of the analysis.

2. 2. Initial research interview To get an idea about who the target group is and to find out which of the initial topics are relevant to include, an interview was conducted with an expert in teaching immigrants and refugees (Appendix 9). He is the leader of the organisation ”Lærdansk” which is a part of the bigger organisation “Dansk Flygtningehjælp”. The two organisations aim towards helping refugees in Denmark. “Lærdansk” focuses on teaching the Danish language. They provide the students with tools and a secure environment they need to develop and understand the Danish culture and language. The expert explained that the educational content should be taught in a way that helps the student gain and maintain motivation. He also expressed that it is good to be in an environment where it is clear that the taught content is needed. Another reason to conduct the interview was to acquire knowledge about what technology is currently used to teach refugees and in what extent games are included in teaching. The current technology includes an online toolset “Lærdansk ABC”. Knowledge about refugees and their background as well as their abilities towards reading, speaking and learning in general is gained through data collected in this interview. It is known from the interview that 25% of the around 10.000 students connected to “Lærdansk” are refugees and about 25% of these are non-literate. This means they need lower demands than the rest. The expert mentions several times that the biggest problem is making the refugees understand why they have to learn specific topics.

7


The expert also explained the different age rates of refugees, but clarifies that those above 18 is the most important target for second language acquisition, as well as a good understanding of the culture. They are ready for their work life and to contribute to the society. With this in mind, it sets the boundaries for the target group.

2. 3. Target Group Since we want refugees to be our target group for the game, we are going to look into their background. In Denmark the influx of refugees have been rising recently (UdlĂŚndingestyrelsen, 2015). According to Rigspolitiet and UdlĂŚndingestyrelsen (2015) approx. 14.792 refugees were seeking asylum in Denmark in 2014. They are forced to flee from their home country because of war and persecution or poor life quality. They are looking towards a better future, but when they come to a new country, like Denmark, it costs a lot of money for the state. In 2013 Denmark used over 900 million Danish Kroner on refugees as a result of a long integration process as seen in figure 2.1. If the integration process gets faster, the refugees can start to earn money and provide for them self earlier. This should result in lower expenses.

Figure 2.1 - Expenses to refugees in Denmark

Refugees come from different cultures with different values, norms and behaviours. Their language is often very different from Danish, which makes it difficult to be well integrated into the Danish society (Appendix 9). 44 % of students in the integration program do not complete the education within 3 years, as they are meant to. This affects the integration process, job possibilities and their future life. It also highlights the opportunity for a game to be a more effective way than the current educational material (Social- og Integrationsministeriet, 2013).

8


In an article from “Agenda” (Elmer, 2015), numbers show a yearly absence of 27 % on the Danish classes, in the 3-year integration program. Integration researcher Mehmet Ümit Necef (Elmer, 2015) states that it has something to do with their lack of motivation. In the interview (Appendix 9) the expert from Lærdansk points out that they have some difficulties seeing the meaning of specific subjects they might not relate to. As an example the expert explains that they might not see the purpose of learning how to find the way to “Rundetårn”. This is an attempt to teach Danish culture but can be demotivating for the refugees, who cannot relate to it (Appendix 9). Analysis of the background and future challenges clearly reveals that the above is a problem and we can now conclude the following: Both money and integration are indirectly affected by the language learning. Refugees connected to Lærdansk are trying to learn the Danish language and already have an online tool to support the education. Furthermore it is known from the interview and the analysis that it is most relevant to focus on refugees above 18, because of their current life situation and their place in society. After analysing the refugees’ background, the final target group has been narrowed down and specified as; Refugees in Denmark who are students at the organisation “Lærdansk”, above 18 years old and have little knowledge about the Danish language and culture.

2. 4. The input hypothesis There are many different ways of teaching a language, but the most acknowledged is the Input Hypothesis by the American linguist Stephen Krashen (Harmer, 2007). According to the input hypothesis (Burt & Dulay & Krashen, 1982), we acquire language by understanding messages i.e. comprehensible input. An example of comprehensible input for new language learners is speaking in shorter, simpler sentences with some visual aids. For comprehensible input to work the language learner must be open to the input and the input must contain an input + 1 aspect i.e. “an aspect of the language that the acquirer has not yet acquired, but that he or she is ready to acquire” (Krashen, 1991). The input hypothesis states that “a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to move from stage i to stage i+1 is that the acquirer understand the input that contains i+1, where “understand” means that the acquirer is focussed on the meaning and not the form of the message.” (Krashen, 1982). In order for the learners to acquire the language, it 9


needs to contain structure a bit beyond their current level of language competence. For a completely new second language student it means that when you say “This is a hand� while pointing at your hand, they get to understand the words as comprehensible input. The +1 aspect here is that they get some basic knowledge about grammar and phrasing. Krashen (1991) states that comprehensible input is the only technique that is consistently effective in increasing language proficiency, whereas more skill-building; more correction and output does not give a consistent result in better language proficiency. Learners with more exposure to a second language e.g. those living in a country where the language is native or ones using the language on a regular basis, usually show more proficiency in the language (Krashen, 1982; 1985). Though on a practical level exposure primarily benefits the intermediate language learner, it is not limited to them only.

Figure 2.2 The effect of exposure on language acquisition (Krashen, 1991)

In the figure 2.2 by Stephen Krashen it is shown how much exposure helps on different levels of language acquisition. With low or high acquisition, exposure does not help as much as if you have an intermediate acquisition. Studies (Bushman & Madson, 1976; Voge, 1981; Asher, 1988; Hammond, 1988) show that language teaching methods with more comprehensible input consistently win in method comparison research. It especially shows superiority when used on students who are new to a second language.

10


For a learning game that teaches language, the input hypothesis would be ideal to incorporate. It suggests the comprehensible input could be implemented in a learning game with pictures/graphics and sounds or voices.

2. 5. Comprehensible output: The comprehensible output hypothesis says that “We acquire language when we attempt to transmit a message but fail and have to try again. Eventually, we arrive at the correct form of our utterance, our conversational partner finally understands, and we acquire the new form we have produced.� (Krashen, 1998). According to Krashen (1998) the comprehensible output has some difficulties, e.g. comprehensible output is too scarce to make a real contribution to linguistic competence and there is no direct evidence that comprehensible output leads to language acquisition. It is also possible to achieve high levels of linguistic competence without any output. So it is not necessary for second language students to attempt to transmit a message and fail again and again until they get it right. They will not learn anything new but only to communicate what they already know. Due to this lack of evidence for comprehensible output actually making a real contribution that students really learn a language, it is not important for the player of a learning game to talk when playing.

11


2. 6. Language Acquisition Language acquisition is the term for how people perceive and comprehend language. People learn languages in different ways. Some people ‘pick up’ language without lessons, by living in the country with the language they want to learn, however it is very unusual that they will achieve mastery this way (Harmer, 2007). Other people go to language classes and study the language they aspire to learn, which gives the students a possibility of learning to master the language. Refugees at Lærdansk follow a language programme for 3-5 years, before they are able to speak Danish. There are many aspects in learning a language, and maybe even more theories on how to learn. Paul Nation (1994), a leading researcher in vocabulary acquisition notes that: “A rich vocabulary makes the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing easier to perform.” Vocabulary is fundamental and should be taught intensively in the early stages of learning a second language. Keith S. Folse (2004), experienced in second language teaching, insists that vocabulary is crucial when learning a second language. In his research, he states: “A good curriculum is based on student needs, and vocabulary knowledge is high on student priority lists.”. Improving vocabulary expands the capacity to learn more. Seeing vocabulary as the first step for learning a language, this is what a potential “level 1” in language learning game should teach.

2. 7. Vocabulary by reading In order for people to learn a new language, they have to build up a good vocabulary. Krashen (1989) argues that the best hypothesis for gaining vocabulary is most efficiently achieved by comprehensible input in the form of reading, and that the input hypothesis greatly relates to this. He refers to a test (Fielding & Wilson, 1988) where the researchers asked fifth graders to record their reading activity outside of school. The test showed that children, who would perform better on a vocabulary test, reported more voluntary reading. Rice (1986) reports that adults who spent more time doing voluntary leisure readings would score higher on a vocabulary test than the adults who did not do voluntary readings. These tests prove that reading gives a broader vocabulary through comprehensible input.

12


It would benefit a language learning game to incorporate text, to give the player something to read, which could more efficiently expand the player vocabulary.

2. 8. Motivation “In general, we can define motivation as a state that directs an organism in certain ways to seek particular goals.� (Cotman & McGaugh, 1980). It is also one of the main factors when it comes to learning a new language. According to Watkins and Yu (2008) learners without sufficient motivation do not succeed in possessing new language skills even if their language aptitude and level of intelligence are high. Gardner & Lambert (1959) identified two motivational orientations: integrative and instrumental. Integrative is a desire to learn a language in order to have contact and integrate with members of the language community whereas the latter refers to achieving goals such as academic or job connected goals. Learners who are integratively motivated are more successful at an advanced language level due to the fact that when one is keen on the associated culture his interest and desire in the language may last longer (Watkins & Yu, 2008). In extension to the above, the interview revealed that students can have trouble seeing the purpose in regard to some parts of the curriculum even though they are very motivated to learn. There has to be a clear goal to show how and why they need specific vocabulary areas that they might not find relevant (Appendix 9). There are two sources of motivation. Intrinsic which is a desire to act because of an action that is satisfying or pleasurable by itself, and extrinsic where one performs to achieve something from the outside (Ettinger, 2011). Games use both types of motivation to make players play more and learn more of the games content. An example of extended effort towards achieving a goal is the motivation gained from seeing a virtual game character and helps it achieve their goals. Gee (2003) suggests that the more influence the player has on the virtual character's actions and desired goal, the more the player gets motivated to play. Mainly motivation comes from the desire to recreate themselves and achieve control and understanding over this new life and the choices made.

13


Karl M. Kapp (2012) says that there are few ways to motivate users to play and be more engaged in the game which are listed below: ●

Leaderboards, badges, points and rewards are elements which push people to perform better. It is that competitive element which makes people desire to be at the top of the leaderboard or receive a unique reward which no one else has. Those factors make a user play and play again to improve his score.

Feedback - When the player knows where he is in the process of e.g. levelling up or learning a topic he is more motivated as the progress is seen in real time.

Levels - Going through parts of a game makes the player feel that he is progressing. The level of a character, different levels of difficulty or gaining experience are the elements which provide feedback about how the player is doing.

Failure - It makes the player feel more pleasure and satisfaction when he overcomes difficult moments to achieve a desired goal.

Storytelling - a big story behind the game is on a daily basis nowadays. It makes a player get more involved in the universe of the game and understand the context better.

All those elements are great ways of keeping a player engaged in a game. Nowadays, most of the productions use those tricks e.g. one of the world’s most succeeding language learning games, ‘Duolingo’. It uses badges to show the completed chapters. Levels and experience to reflect the daily progress. The constant feedback shows how the player is doing and how much more he needs to do. The competitive element is present in the profile which can be connected to social media accounts, which then shows each player’s progress on a leaderboard.

14


2. 9. Tangential Learning As described by James Portnow (2008) Tangential learning is “The idea that some portion of your audience will self educate if you can facilitate their introduction to topics they might like in a context they already find exciting and engaging.�(Rath, 2015). Through different means people can be encouraged to research something that has attracted their attention or can even be provided with some knowledge, in a way that is not strictly all about learning e.g. in war games you easily learn the names of different military equipment. In games which use Tangential learning some rules do not apply in the same way as in traditional classroom learning. For example a negative feedback in a game encourages player to reflect upon his strategy and change his decision making to achieve a better result. Whereas a negative grade or feedback in school is often discouraging. In video games unlike in classroom-based learning, players are often able to try again as many times as they want and evaluate upon their errors (Chantes & Hoffman & Kinzer & Turkay & Vicari, 2015).

2. 10. Game Design Theories One of the most important aspects of game design is defining genre and whether the game’s storyline should be linear, nonlinear or both. The two determine what type of game is being produced and how the design process should proceed. Furthermore it also decides certain genre connected criteria in the game. RPG gives players an opportunity to recreate themselves and feel in control of the character which is one of the factors that motivate the most. Simulation on the other hand can provide excellent information about a specific topic such as how to run your own business or how to be a surgeon.

2. 10. 1. Genre Role Playing Game RPG (Role Playing Game) is recognised by having a strong story where the characters develop a lot throughout. In RPG, the player is usually the hero who has to save the world or has an important mission to fulfil. There are often many quests in the game like killing monsters, destroying objects or rescuing someone (Novak, 2007).

15


Simulation Simulation games take their inspiration from the real or a fictional world and make the player replicate and follow the rules of this world. There are different varieties to simulation e.g. a flight simulator game that simulates you being the pilot, sports simulators like FIFA that simulates a football match or Sims where the player simulates the life he wants to live. (Novak, 2007).

2. 10. 2. Storyline The structure of a story can be very different when using different techniques. The most basic way to divide those techniques is to split them into linear and nonlinear. Linear is a very narrative thread with a rich story that the player has to follow. It could also be level or stage oriented. In this case the player has to complete the stages consecutively e.g. level 1, then 2, then 3, without the possibility to play level 3 before level 1 and 2 is completed. A nonlinear game is directly opposite to a linear storyline. In these games the player is free to do tasks in almost whatever order he wants. There might be a quest line, but the player can determine when he wants to do what (Berbank-Green & Cusworth & Thompson, 2007). This is an important factor when making a game, as the player needs to feel that he or she is in control over what is happening and is not told what to do, while learning at the same time.

2. 11. Advantages of learning through games A survey among teachers said that relatedness is one of the most important factors for a learning game. The transfer between what the participants learn during the classes to actually using the knowledge in real life situations can be easier when learning is accompanied by a game (Bourgonjon & De Grove & Van Looy, 2012). This relates to what the expert from LĂŚrdansk described in the interview (Appendix 9). One of the methods to decrease the gap between learning games and classroom teaching is by deeply integrating knowledge in a game. In this case it could be about real life situations that refugees experience daily.

16


2. 12. State of the art: An example of the newest up and running game environments for second language learning is the website Duolingo (figure 2.3). It provides a learning tool based on gamification and has a high success rate for people who are motivated to learn (Grego & Vesselinov, 2012). Utilising gamification means the use of game mechanics like keeping track of achievements through badges or being able to see progress through visualisation. Other gamifying elements are point systems and leaderboards. (Hamari

&

Koivisto

&

Sarsa,

2014).

Figure 2.3. Duolingo’s badge system, to see your progress.

Another example of a learning environment is the online toolset “Lærdansk ABC” (figure 2.4.) which is currently used to teach the Danish language and culture to refugees and immigrants at Lærdansk. This toolset provides exercises in the complete basics of the language. It begins with the alphabet and then moves on to vocabulary and pronunciation exercises. The toolset finishes off with exercises about basic grammar. Exercises in the tool consist of listening to a computer's voice which pronounces letters, words and sentences. These exercises give the learner the skills he needs to understand how words are pronounced. The vocabulary exercises are mainly based on the comprehensible input theory with the task to connect words to pictures as well as listening to words pronounced by the female computer voice. 17


Figure 2.4. Lærdansk ABC task, where you press a green circle to hear a sound and another to see picture.

In general technical issues and design issues are very widespread in the current toolset. A Technical issue is the website not being shown correctly on some Mac computers. Understanding the current technology used in computer based learning tools and analysing their design is important to develop an improved technology. Based on the knowledge gained from researching Duolingo, it is shown that the motivation to learn languages is easier to increase when the learner is motivated integratively. When analysing the webtool “Lærdansk ABC” it becomes clear that even though a system functions well, it can be hard to stay motivated when having a hard time seeing the context. This is what a learning game could provide.

18


2. 13. Sub Conclusion After analysing the target group it shows that the integration is a key part of this problem. It also allows the target group to be narrowed down. The expert from Lærdansk explained in the interview (Appendix 9) that refugees above 18 is more important as the target group, because they are ready to work and contribute to the Danish society. To create a learning game that will be appropriate for the target group it could be proper to base it on the comprehensible input theory as it is the best way of acquiring language. Teaching vocabulary is the best place to start when learning a new language as it creates a foundation and makes other parts of language acquisition easier. Creating a nonlinear storyline in combination with the entertaining aspects from RPG and the educational aspects of simulation, might be a great genre for a learning game. This game could provide the user with a better learning experience than the currently used State of the Art tool which is Lærdansk ABC. When combining the outcome of research on the motivation, tangential learning with one on how to learn, the result is an outline of what is called learning experience further in the report. We define a good learning experience as a way of learning which is both educating and entertaining and which motivates the user in an intrinsic way. This leads towards a definition of the final problem statement presented below.

2. 14. Final Problem statement “How can a game improve refugees’ learning experience when learning the basics of the Danish language compared to Lærdansk ABC?”

19


2. 15. Design requirements From the analysis we can conclude on that the game should include: 1. Comprehensible input, as it is the easiest way to learn a new language by a. text b. sounds c. visuals 2. Vocabulary for beginners. 3. Tangential learning aspects. 4. RPG and Simulation games elements. 5. Achievements, point system and other intrinsic motivational elements. 6. Daily situation based levels to close the gap between learning language at school and implementing it in real life answering the user’s question: “why am I doing this?”

20


3. Design 3. 1. Concept Everything the player has to learn, see or interact with, is supported with comprehensible input (2.4. The Input Hypothesis) to make the learning as efficient as possible. Furthermore the game will be in Danish, and as the target group has a very limited knowledge about the Danish language, it is important that visuals and the speaker will provide sustenance along with the gameplay. The game will need levels with an increasing difficulty, which will be accompanied by a more intense implementation of the input hypothesis theory (2.4. The Input Hypothesis). According to the analysis (Appendix 9) the game should reflect real life situations, which is why we chose a shopping mall. Everyone has to buy groceries and everyone will at some point be at a shopping mall. The game begins with the player finding himself standing in the main entrance, with specific tasks that have to be completed. Based on the analysis the tasks need to have a certain relevance, reflecting real life situations (Appendix 9). The language acquisition should occur without the player noticing that he is actually learning.(2.9. Tangential Learning). With the purpose of making the player feel like being present, the viewpoint inside the game will be first-person. The analysis says that building a vocabulary is the foundation for learning a new language (2.7. Vocabulary). This means that every object in the game is supported by text and sound for each individual object, to provide the player with comprehensible input (2.4. The Input Hypothesis). When the task is completed or if the player does not want to complete the tasks, there will be an open world that the player is able to freely explore and get to know the words inside. This means that he will also be able to learn words that are not included in the tasks. We decided to call the game Dansk Hverdag which means “Danish Everyday� as it reflects the character of the game which actions will take place in common real-life situations.

21


3. 2. Linear and nonlinear The game has a linear storyline with nonlinear sub tasks. It is stated in the analysis for the player to be motivated the most he should feel in control of the character’s decisions and development (2.9. Tangential Learning). The choice of nonlinear subtasks is based on the findings in the analysis. The linear storyline is chosen to, set up typical real-life situations. This way, we can ensure that the player goes through the crucial parts of the game. To make the player feel more in control, their path could be more opened as shown in figure 3.1. It would make the player able to choose whether he or she wanted to visit the bank, before the supermarket, or the cafe before the bank.

Figure 3.1: Sketch of nonlinear storyline

3. 3. Environment/World Design A shopping mall was chosen as a first level as it is a common place in which there are few different groups of objects and names. As for e.g. Food in a supermarket or common use objects like a bench. In addition it is an easy and quick to model place because it is a closed environment without many organic shapes.

22


The reason for the mall to be the main environment of the game, is that the mall provides with realistic and everyday elements, making it possible to reach several tasks in the same environment. A supermarket, a bank and a cafe are the three locations for the prototype tasks to take place as sketched on figure 3.2. According to the expert from LĂŚrdansk (Appendix 9) the refugees learn better when they learn words that are relevant to them In this case they need to know how to get their food, clothes, health care product and how to withdraw money. The supermarket and ATM (cash-dispenser) can provide that. In the third location which is a cafe they can learn new words related to this kind of place.

Figure 3.2. Sketch showing a shopping mall and a simple Graphic User Interface

3. 4. Colours Colours are also a very important aspect of designers work as they strongly impact on the emotions that the designed product evokes on the user. At least a basic knowledge about them is needed to create a product which matches the intentions of the designer.

23


Colour meanings are usually strongly connected to the culture “for example, while many western brides wear white dresses as a symbol of purity, Chinese brides usually wear red, a colour that is a symbol of good luck” (Said & Wegman, 2011) Colours evoke emotions than can be used in favour of the designer. Here are some examples of colour associations.

red: urgency, passion, heat, love, blood

purple: wealth, royalty, sophistication, intelligence

blue: truth, dignity, power, coolness, melancholy, heaviness

black: death, rebellion, strength, evil

white: purity, cleanliness, lightness, emptiness

yellow: warmth, cowardice, brightness

This project has an educational purpose therefore it should use purple- the colour of royalty and intelligence, blue- as it is the colour of truth, dignity and power, yellow- which is a warm colour, and white which is the colour of purity. Those colours are all associated with positive and studyrelated emotions and should therefore be used in our project while avoiding black and red as much as possible (Said & Wegman, 2011). These colours are fundamental in our design. Both the main menu and the pause menu primarily consist of purple and white colours.

3. 5. Art style The art style of the game has few main characteristics. First of all the game consists of characters and objects modelled in a low polygon style as they are quick and easy to model and can be textured to look integrated easily.

3. 6. Sounds It is very important that the game has well describing sounds. The sounds are able to help and strengthen the comprehensible input (2.4. The Input Hypothesis) by saying the word related to the thing being looked at, together with the name of the item presented on screen our game gives three different kinds inputs at the same time and with the same meaning. 24


Figure 3.3: A low polygon figure from the game Dansk Hverdag

3. 7. Tasks The tasks are based on how a regular visit in the mall could look like. In this case the player needs to go the ATM to collect money(see figure 3.4.), which he can use later. The idea is to build up a vocabulary with words that are important when they need to withdraw money (or at a higher level, go into the bank). When the money is collected, the player needs to go to the supermarket and buy groceries(see figure 3.5). When these are found the player needs to pay by the cash register. When this task is completed, the player can walk around and explore the world. The general requirement for the tasks was to simulate a real-life to do list.

25


Figure 3.4 ATM from Dansk Hverdag

Figure 3.5. Overview of Dansk Hverdag grocery store.

26


3. 8. Achievement System The game contains an achievement system, which has two functions. When the player looks at the object and interacts with it, the name of the object will be played as a sound. The object will be stored in a logbook, that makes the player able to see his or hers progress while playing. The system shows the learned words in form of badges so the player can keep track of how many objects he stepped into. The purpose is to increase the motivation (2.8. Motivation). When the player feels motivated, the chances of a better and faster learning increase as well (2.8. Motivation). The player can see the words seen in the game on a scrollable list accompanied by a picture of the object he saw. He can also play the sound when pressing the word, to hear the pronunciation. The achievement menu is sketched in figure 3.6.

figure 3.6. How the achievement system look like.

27


3. 9. Rewards We wanted to implement a reward system, as this would give a lot more motivation for the player to play the game (2.8. Motivation). The reward system will not be implemented in the demo version but its purpose would be to keep the player motivated by rewarding them for gaining a certain amount of points. After reaching the 1st goal they would unlock a job, next they would meet a friend followed by buying a house and buying a car as a final goal. Unlocking a reward would goes with unlocking a new level which means a whole new range of words to learn.

3. 10. Overall information design: During the interview the expert (Appendix 9) mentioned problems that learners have in implementing the knowledge they gain in real-life situations. The game is created as a 3 dimensional first person RPG / simulation to closely picture a real-life experience when e.g. the player has to do the shopping in a supermarket. Progress should optionally be saved for the player to return later and continue collecting words. The controls for the game should be the standard controls for first person 3D games, with w, a, s and d for movement, and the mouse to look around. This decision was made as those controls are the standard for most of the games with a first person view. The following sections will contain information and interaction design for the elements shown through the interaction map seen on figure 3.7.

28


Figure 3.7. Interaction map of the game world

3. 11. Menu The menu will display the title of the game and should include a traditional menu with the possibilities for starting a new game, opening a saved game and closing it. On figure 3.8 an early sketch of the interaction with the menu can be seen. The menu options will be displayed with buttons along with a visual explanation to support the comprehensible input approach (2.4 The Input Hypothesis), which clearly shows the different possibilities. With this traditional design style for the buttons and along with visuals the player will

29


easier be able to figure out how to manage around in the game.

Figure 3.8

3. 12. Intro (explanation of controls) The introduction screen should provide detailed information and visuals describing interaction possibilities. Controls will be explained by characteristic pictures and button/mouse based icons. From the introduction screen the player can continue to the actual game.

3. 13. The levels 3. 13. 1. Shopping Centre Information The shopping centre theme takes place in a fictive shopping centre. Figure 3.9 shows the order of where the player goes. The to do list of the player consist of - 1. collecting some money -> 2. buying groceries -> 3. going to cafĂŠ.

30


Figure 3.9. Overview of tasks

Interaction: Player will be able to interact with the most object in the environment when approaching to an object and look at it. When the interaction key will be pressed voice will plays and text will come up explaining what the object is called in Danish. This method corresponds to the comprehensible input method (2.4. The Input Hypothesis)

3. 14. The in-game menu: While playing it will be possible to open a pause menu by pressing ‘esc’. The menu includes the possibilities of continuing the game, entering the progress menu, saving the game or going to the main menu. As knowing the progress increases the player’s motivation (2.8. Motivation). in the progress menu the player will be able to see the gained achievements and the score which will be the amounts of words discovered.

31


4. Implementation In this chapter, the implementation of the most important code is described. There is a description of which software tools were used and why. The basic coding elements as variables, classes and arrays will not be described in detail.

4. 1. Main Menu The first thing the player sees when launching the game is the main menu with three buttons. The first button advance from the main menu to the introduction part. The second button is supposed to open a screen, where the player can open a saved file. The last button quits the game. As seen in figure 4.1, the main menu buttons are made with OnGUI, which is a predefined function in unity. This piece of code contains the predefined function GUI.DrawTexture, to draw the background and also contains the GUI.Button, which makes the button. The OnGUI creates a 2D layer visible in the field of view.

figure 4.1 The Main Menu code, with buttons and background.

To proceed to the next scene, the predefined function Application.LoadLevel is run in an object’s code which in this case is a button. The code for the introduction level is made by the same lines as in the main menu. There is a background image and a button to go forward to the actual game.

32


4. 2. Pause Menu: In the game if the player wants to see his score, achievements, needs a break or wants to exit the game he can press the ESC button on the computer for the pause menu to appear. Figure 4.2. shows how the pause menu is disabling the rotation of the screen. The cursor is made visible and moveable for the player, due to the mouse being otherwise locked to the player camera and invisible.

figure 4.2. The Pause Menu, with buttons to achievement and exit the game.

33


4. 3. Player Movement: As shown in the figure 4.3 the character control of the game is implemented with the unity component called CharacterController. First in the script, the component is called with GetComponent. After that there is an if statement that checks if the player is on the ground. Then the Vector 3 is being declared and called moveDirection, having the input of the horizontal axes and the vertical axes, which makes the character able to move forward, backwards, left and right.

figure 4.3 The characters movement.

Then moveDirection is declared to be the same as TransformDirection, which means that the local position of the character is going to be the same as the global transform which makes attach game objects, move along with the character: The next part is adding a speed to the player. The last piece of code in figure 4.3 creates a gravity force to the moveDirection.y so the player stays on ground and updates in time instead of framecount and make the movement updates in time, rather than framerate.

34


4. 4. The bank and objects: The first task in the game is to visit the ATM. When a player comes to the atm it triggers a boolean in the script. Then the player has to press “e” to hear a sound and a picture will show up. Then the player has to press the button “fortsæt” to see the next picture and press “e” again to hear the next sound. When the player has seen all the pictures, the player has completed the first task.

figure 4.4 The bank code, when the player is on trigger and press e, it open the atm task

All the objects the player can interact with has almost the same script as figure 4.4, just with some adjustment. The bank script is the only one who has a method call if the player press e and sees it at the same time, others just play the sound. However, they are all a gui box, that will show the name of the gameobject, if the player look at it. The object do have some more codes in their OnTriggerEnter. They all call one method from achievement manager script and some calls one from the hud. The call from the achievement manager is for when the player has seen the object, it should be added to their achievements. Those objects that has the hud code in it, like in figure 4.5, is using it to set the task and when the player has seen the object, it sets the task to completed.

35


figure 4.5 if the krydderi has been seen, it would give an achievement and cleared a task

4. 5. Achievements and Task: When the player sees an object an achievement and points are earned.The code activating the achievements is two GUI.Box as shown in figure 4.6. One when it is complete and one when it is not complete. To control them, there is boolean that checks if the achievement is earned or not.

figure 4.6 The look of an achievement

However, there are more than one achievement and instead of putting a GUI.box for every achievement in the code, a loop was used to create all the achievements. The loop in figure 4.7 makes a rect for each achievement in the achievements array and gives them all the initially same positions and two GUI styles, for one when it’s earned and one when it is not earned. The bottom line adds 80 to the y value for each achievement positioned below the current achievement in the

36


array.

figure 4.7 A loop that makes an array of the achievements.

The player earns an achievement when he sees an object. It is implemented in a way that when he looks at the object, it adds 1 point as shown in figure 4.5. However, the code calls a method from the achievement called SetProgressToAchievement which can been seeing in figure 4.8. That method calls two other methods. The first is GetAchievementByName, that checks if the name in the objects are the same as in the achievement. The second is SetProgress which checks if the achievement is earned. If the achievements name match and the bool is true, it switches the picture showing that the achievement is earned. The last thing SetProgressToAchievement calls is a method named AchievementEarned. This calls another method named UpdateRewardPointTotals which updates the amount of points that the player has.When the achievement is done, the player gets the amount of points, that is set in each achievement.

figure 4.8 the code that makes sure the achievements have the same name and if it earned, the player gets the point.

The tasks work in the same way as the achievements. They share the same code, with a few changes. Instead of having a button like achievements, the tasks are constantly visible for the player in the game The size and position is adjusted to place them in the right corner. When the player has done a task, a check mark will show, to indicate that the task has been done. The task to find all the groceries on the list, is working with an if statement, that checks if all the objects have been seen and if they had, the task is complete.

37


4. 6. Sound Effects: Sound works a lot similar to the objects; you press ‘E’ and it triggers the sound of the object that the player is looking at. To implement the sound each object had to have an audio source and a script for the sound to work. The script in figure 4.9 calls the audio source by making a public variable in the class for each object called e.g. “public AudioClip skjorte;” and a private variable called “AudioSource source;”.

figure 4.9 The public variables for an object

Then the sound is initialised with void Awake() where the source becomes equal to the component AudioSource seeing in figure 4.10.

figure 4.10 calling the game component AudioSource

When the code in figure 4.11 updates, the code piece activating sounds works like the code piece activating achievements using the predefined function void OnTriggerEnter(Collider other). When the box representing the player’s eyesight collide with the gameobject it triggers and sets the statement ‘checks’ to be true. If the player press ‘E’ while the ‘check’ is true it will play the audio clip connected to the object by saying e.g. source.PlayOneShot(skjorte);

38


figure 4.11: If the player sees an object and then press e, it will play a sound

The script was then assigned to the object where the source for the audio clip was assigned as seen in figure 4.12.

figure 4.12: How to place a sound effect in on a gameobject.

39


4. 7. Tools 4. 7. 1. Unity The game was created in Unity which is a game engine that can do both 2D and 3D games. It has the possibility to create the code and change the code in unity inspector, if the code variable is public. As seen in figure 4.13 it makes it easy to assign pictures and sound to different game objects. All the achievement visuals have two public textures, one for when completed and one for incompleted task.

figure 4.13: How the unity inspector work, where the creator of a game can put in texture on public variables.

Unity can take models from different 3D Modelling applications and easily import objects into the scene. The models can be scaled and rotated, to fit the game. It also has a console that comes in handy, when making the code due to it being able to see if there is problem with the code and gives a clue about what’s wrong. It’s also a good way to check if the buttons work, with debug.log that’s also pop ups in the console.

40


4. 7. 2. SketchUp The Shopping centre was modelled and put together using SketchUp as seen in figure 4.14. SketchUp allows designers and architects to quickly and efficiently create properly assessed models of buildings and objects. The choice fell on this as it was the best way to create a real-life like environment taking into account our basic modelling skills and the time we had to implement.

figure 4.14: Model of the building, was made in Google SketchUp

4. 7. 3. Maya For 3D character modelling, Maya is a great tool allowing much more control over vertices and has a feature of mirror editing which can only be done in Sketchup with plug-ins. Basically, Maya was chosen because it is a much more suitable program to create characters in than Sketchup. The human figures with a low polygon count was tried with higher detail faces, but detailed faces on lowpoly bodies made them fall down The Uncanny Valley which we did not want. Applying very simple faces with the use of textures resulted in a more pleasant appearance.

41


4. 8. Missing parts from the design One functionality that was left out, was in the Achievement list. We designed the achievement buttons to be pressable, and play the sound of the object when clicked. Saving progress of the achievements was not implemented due to lack of time. We prioritised other implementations, and figured out that saving option would not be necessary to evaluate the game.

42


5. Evaluation This section will go through the planning of the evaluation and how the test was carried out. The evaluation is designed to test the user’s Learning Experience of Dansk Hverdag and Lærdansk ABC. After the test, each game’s results are compared with each other. The evaluation type will be a summative evaluation, as we want to check if the requirements and goals are met. The requirements combined with the overall problem statement is what defined this evaluation.

“How can a game improve refugees’ learning experience when learning the basics of the Danish language compared to LærDansk ABC?”

The keyword in the problem statement is the refugees’ learning experience. When taking a closer look on this it can be divided into 2 main parts (see fig. 5.1). The figure below shows the link between the problem statement, the design requirements and the key parts we want to research and evaluate.

figure 5.1: The relation between the design requirements and the problem statement

43


The first thing that is important to evaluate on, is the fact that they should actually learn something. As one of the design requirements states, the game should focus on building up a vocabulary and therefore it is crucial to know if the game succeed in that matter. In order to learn properly while achieving a good learning experience, the player also needs some kind of motivation (2.8. Motivation). Because of this we wanted to check if the user felt motivated to play the game. In this case the meaning of motivation includes, how immersing the player will feel, while playing, how challenging it is compared to their skills and how relatable it is to the player. Lastly the learning experience relies on how well the game works and what the user experiences while playing. This mainly includes controls and tasks, and therefore it is necessary to find out if they know what to do and when to do it.

5. 1. Theory The approach being used is a field study. Testing should be carried out in the target group’s natural settings; in the classroom for their daily Danish language studying. This method was chosen to get a realistic representation on how the target group would interact with the games in a well known environment. The evaluation also aims to compare the learning experiences and to do so we will use a comparative research method. With this research form we should be able to answer our research question. The design of the test will be set up as a between group design. One group of participants will be chosen to play LÌrdansk ABC while another group from the same population will be playing Dansk Hverdag.

Both qualitative and quantitative methods will be used during the evaluation. We wanted to combine the two methods by using the convergent parallel mixed methods (Bjørner, 2015) to establish a better structure for the evaluation. The quantitative method will be made by word tests and questionnaires. This is very essential when using the comparative research method. The data can then be compared, analysed and further described through the discussion. While the participants are playing, the researchers will observe them using a non-participant observation type called direct observation. The researchers will observe the participants behaviour and flaws through the test without interacting When every test is done and the questionnaires have been answered, a focus group interview will be conducted, having one of the researchers in charge as the moderator. 44


5. 2. Participants The expected sample of our Target Group was 39 people, but due to different reasons only 26 participated in the evaluation in total. All participants were divided in two language classes, 12 in the first and 14 in the second. The first class have completed the 1st module of the language class and has started module 2 of 6 modules of “Danskuddannelse 2” (Lærdansk, 2015) , which is the second of 3 different Danish educations at Lærdansk. The second Danish education at Lærdansk means that they have been in school for between 8-10 years in their homeland and who knows the Latin alphabet. The 2nd class had completed module 3 and were starting module 4 of “Danskuddannelse 2”. So there were a difference in the language levels between the two test groups. The test groups were predefined by the teachers at Lærdansk, which is called a Random Cluster Sample. Each cluster represents a small scale of the total population. In this case the clusters only consisted of the language schools on Zealand. The test participants consisted of a both refugees and immigrants at the Lærdansk’s school in Ringsted.

5. 3. Evaluation description Previous to the testing we did some preparation for each class, before the participants entered the classroom. First we divided the classroom in two. Then we put out computers for everyone each with a computer mouse and headphones. Half of the computers with Dansk Hverdag installed and ready to play and the other half with the Lærdansk ABC. The computers were closed to avoid distraction. The first word test was delegated face down for the same reason. The setup is clearly illustrated in figure 5.2.

45


figure 5.2: The testing setup

The evaluation was carried out in 5 parts. First a pre-game word test (Appendix 5 and 7), then the playing of the games, then a questionnaire (Appendix 3 and 4), a post-game word test (Appendix 6 and 8) and last a focus group interview. 1st part. We made sure there was an equal number of participants for each game, and then introduced the them to the agenda, who we were, what was going to happen and why. The participants then started the word test. 2nd part. The participants started playing the games. While playing the game the researchers acted as observants. The participants were given 10 minutes to play each of their games. 3rd part. A questionnaire about the game they played was given. 46


4th part. The participants were given the seconds word test. 5th part. The focus group interview conducted on the group as a whole, and gave the participants who played the Lærdansk ABC a chance to play our game, so they would also be able to give us some feedback on what worked and what did not.

5. 4. Word Test: The word tests consisted of 20 pictures, each with three words options and an “I don’t know” option, where the task was to check off a square beside the word that matched the picture. The word lists were made by simple random selection. We created a word list with 56 single words from inside Dansk Hverdag. The test words were chosen with a random number generator from 1 to 56, so the group had no influence at all. Furthermore the multiple choice options are chosen by the researchers with the same theme and the same level of difficulty. For the word test of Lærdansk ABC. We used random words from the two assignments from the Lærdansk website. A random number generator was used to pick the words completely at random. The other possible answers for the multiple choice test was chosen by same method as the other word test. The post-game word test consisted of the same questions as in the pre-game word test, but in a different order, as it was crucial to know if the participants had learnt anything from each of the games. The results would show how much each participants had learnt by comparing the post-game word tests to the pre-game tests.

5. 5. Observation The plan for the observation was to use a non-participant observation, but when the participants got confused during the test, the researchers had to step in, in order to get a useful result. Instead of using the non-participant observation type, we ended up using the participant observation type. The observation from our evaluation both consist of quantitative and qualitative elements. The researchers had a clear observation sheet (Appendix 1), which they were following, by crossing yes or no, while making sure to have a clear overview of the areas, we specifically wanted to gain knowledge about. The sheet also included a free space for the qualitative notes, making sure that we

47


could find out why and how the participants behaved and experienced as they did. This is very relevant if the game should go through future improvements. We noted down if the students understood the movement, the tasks, how to play the sound, how to see and navigate through achievements, how to browse the menu and notes if we observed anything else important (Appendix 1).

5. 6. Questionnaire: The questionnaire was made to evaluate on the motivational factors of the game and was handed to the representatives on paper. Our participants did not have much knowledge of the Danish language, which is why we chose the Likert scale from 1 to 5 as answer format for our questionnaires. We wanted quantitative results, so we could compare the results from both of the games. We were informed that the participants could speak either English and/or Arabic, so the questionnaire was made in English and Arabic so they could chose the one that was easiest for them to understand, as it was important to us that they understood each question and they could give the most precise answer. We of course helped them through if they had any questions (Appendix 4). As we could not be sure that our participants were good English users, we kept the questions and answers as simple as possible for them to easily understand and also made a crude Arabic version through Google Translate. The Arabic questions were not grammatically correct, but the participants did understand them (Appendix 3) The reason for giving the questionnaires before the second word tests was to get the participants minds off of the words from the game. This way we would come closer to see if they actually learnt some words, instead of just remembering the words they had just seen.

5. 7. Focus group interview: The focus group interview had the purpose of giving a qualitative insight about the participants thoughts of Dansk Hverdag compared to LĂŚrdansk ABC. The questions were open and we made it clear that any feedback was welcomed. This qualitative method could further show us which elements worked or went wrong, and simultaneously tell us how and why, so these problem areas can be improved or prevented in the future. 48


The questions used for the focus group interview, were similar to the questions of the questionnaire (Appendix 4), but this time included how and why, to get a more in-depth view of the participants’ opinions. The focus group were facilitated by one moderator in charge of the discussion. It was important that the person that were in charge of this role possesses specific skills in order to create a free and dynamic discussion. One researcher had experience with being a soccer coach and were therefore an obvious candidate.

5. 8. Evaluation results: The evaluation gave many of the answers regarding the specific areas of Dansk Hverdag we planned to test (Appendix 2). It has given a lot of knowledge for future development of the game and also showed that the game has potential as a learning tool in the future. The observation showed that few of the participants had any experience with playing computer games, as a lot of them had a hard time controlling the movements and did not know how to roam in 3D space. Also many of them did not understand the tasks and how to do them. Only one of the participants found and understood the achievement system. The word tests showed that the LĂŚrdansk ABC was better at teaching new words compared to Dansk Hverdag at this point of its development, as most participants were taught at least 1 word from the ABC game. A lot of participants did not learn any words from Dansk Hverdag, but a few participants proved that Dansk Hverdag has potential, as some of the them learned new words from that game. One participant who was proficient with computer games learned more words from Dansk Hverdag than any other participant. The focus group interview gave a lot of information regarding what the participants liked and what should be changed. The most common problem with our game was the controls being too hard to both understand and use. They expressed both enthusiasm about the innovative aspects of the game, such as the 3 dimensional world and first-person control, but also provided us with insight of the problematic areas of the game. The game needed more audio feedback towards the player and the controls were difficult. Lastly the game should be more user-friendly, for people who have not played computer games before.

49


5. 9. Quantitative data results: The users of Lærdansk ABC learned more. The average words learned was 4 after playing the game, while Dansk Hverdag only taught a single word to a couple of participants. Lærdansk ABC’s average score was also better in all categories that our quantitative test evaluated which were as follows:

How fun was the game?

How much would you like to play the next level?

How intuitive were the controls?

How understandable were the tasks?

How much were you motivated to get all the points?

According to our observations using the observation sheets, the participants were not able to finish any task, go to the pause menu, discover achievement page, play in-game sounds by using interaction button or even move the character properly.

5. 10. Qualitative data results: The qualitative test conducted was a focus group interview. One researcher asked each group of different game testers questions individually. In the focus group interview, the questions were reformulated. Instead of asking “how fun was the game?”, the new questions were designed to get more qualitative feedback as per saying “why was the game fun?” or “what was fun about the game?”. The qualitative feedback coming from the participants, during the focus group interview, was generally positive. Participants commented on the idea of the game and were eager to get to know it better.

50


5. 11. Content analysis of qualitative data: The diagram illustrates the frequency of each type of comment that was said during the focus group interview(see figure 5.3).

Figure 5.3: frequency of “type of comments” on Dansk Hverdag

The most frequent comments, mentioned nine times, was about the controls: “The controls are difficult, because I am not used to play computer games.” Additionally, four positive comments was about that the game is fun: “The game (Dansk Hverdag) was more fun and exciting than ABC, because you had to go and find stuff on your own.” At last two comments wanted more challenges: “I wanted more challenging tasks in the game.” Without digging too deep into, why the results occurred in this way, we can conclude a few things from the comments: -

The majority of the participants did not know how to control the game.

-

Several participants thought Dansk Hverdag was more fun and exciting because the player had freedom to experience the world in their own way.

-

A few participants wanted more challenging tasks in the game.

5. 12. Sub conclusion The results clearly show that Lærdansk ABC performed better in all tested categories. We also observed that the more skilled participants acknowledged potential and fun in the Dansk Hverdag game.

51


By gathering specific information from the participants and comments in the focus group interview we understood what game elements could be changed to create a better product. The information collected was very valuable and its analysis is presented in the Discussion section.

6. Discussion 6. 1. Introduction Evaluation of Dansk Hverdag in the Lærdansk school ended up giving both interesting and unexpected results. Our game ocurred to be less efficient in all categories that were put to testing. To understand the cause, results of both tests and the bias have been analysed which we present in this section.

6. 2. Bias The results of our tests were influenced by the five types of bias we observed and could not prevent from interrupting which were as follows:

6. 2. 1. Bias in participants Participants were randomly selected, among the refugees on beginners level, by the head of Lærdansk. During the tests some of the participants were talking to each other. We observed one or two situations where the participants used a phone to find an answer or were simply guessing instead of using the “I don’t know” option. Most of the subjects also had previous knowledge of Lærdansk ABC as they had used the game during the classes. Most of them also seemed a bit confused by the overall situation, they had very little experience with playing 3D games which is the reason why some of them looked at the other participants screens to get some clue about what to do instead of trying to figure out and learn the controls by themselves. Lastly a big problem was the language barrier which happened to occur while testing the first group. They knew very little English and Danish which must have influenced their understanding of the in-game quests.

6. 2. 2. Bias in the game There were a few bugs in the Dansk Hverdag game which influenced the gameplay as it was hard for a non-experienced user to figure out an exit from situations they found themselves in for e.g. when using the ATM in the first quest the “fortsæt” (continue) button was partially hidden under the “To do list”. 52


6. 2. 3. Bias in the test The words in the before and after word tests were different depending on the game they were up to play. The pictures in the tests might have been unclear to some of the participants.

6. 2. 4. Bias in the questionnaire: Participants might have had problems with understanding the scales as some of them originated from different parts of the world. They also might have misunderstood the questions as they were provided in English and Arabic, but the latter was translated using a free online dictionary.

6. 3. Analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data The reason for the negative results of Dansk Hverdag was that the participants were not native users of computers, games or other multimedia devices. The countries they originated from are on a lower level of technological advancement. Using computers and other computer based devices is not as common as it is in most of the European countries. We were not expecting this aspect when we planned on making a 3D game. The reason for us to create a game like this was that we as native computer users thought that controlling a character in a 3D world could be taught quickly by showing instructions on the screen. It could also be that the game had no interactive tutorial. The level we presented to the participants was the easiest we could think of and was supposed to be the introduction stage. The results also shows some of the data is standing out from the others. Compared to the data gained from the observation, it is shown that two players have a previous experience with computer games and simultaneously score a better result in the test (Appendix 2). The data is biased, but the results creates a pattern that suggests that if the player know how to control the game, they will learn more.

6. 4. Meaning condensations of the qualitative data Looking deeper into the three general comments from the figure 5.3 (5.11 Content analysis of qualitative data). The comments about the difficult controls says little about the game's content, but more about how bad the game was designed for the target group. To play the game you would have to have at least basic computer skills which the majority of the participants did not. This mistake 53


derives from the very beginning of the project, not knowing how the refugees (the target group) interact and understand computer games or computers in general. We interpret the comments about the fun and excitement of the game, as if the participants actually had been able to manage the controls, they would’ve had more fun with the game. Comments about fun and excitement was directed towards the freedom and immersion in the game. It was more exciting to run around in a 3D-world, than putting words in the correct boxes as in the LÌrdansk ABC. These comments came from participants that could control the game or deeply understood the concept and purpose of the game. In regard to the comments about need of challenge, we understand that the game tasks were easy, if the user could play with the controls. There was no way of dying or failing , which might have made the actual goal of the game unclear. This is something we can bring to our future development.

6. 5. How could we have done differently 6. 5. 1. Introduction To make the Evaluation less biased, receive more trustworthy results or create a better game, there are several things that could have been changed or looked after.

6. 5. 2. Words difference Primarily the biggest bias that this evaluation had was the difference between the in-game words. For the word test to show a better comparison between both games the words should have been the same. However it was difficult to do as LĂŚrdansk ABC had the words very mixed and rarely connected by subject to each other.

6. 6. Bugs and glitches Dansk Hverdag game was filled with bugs and little imperfections like too high mouse sensitivity or a possibility to go through one wall in the game. There should be a possibility to set the sensitivity of the mouse in the options. The outcome of the test was influenced by the impression that the game made on the participants. To avoid it from happening our product should have been free of distractions. Of course 54


that was barely possible because of the time limit on the project but it would be possible in the future re-design.

6. 7. Participant’s skills Target group that our game aimed for was different than assumed. For the game to work properly it should be changed to: Refugees in Denmark who are students at the organisation “Lærdansk”,above 18 years old, have little knowledge about the Danish language and culture and are fluent users of computers. The participants should have been selected basing on previously set criteria. The reason for it is to decrease the difference between skilled users of Lærdansk ABC who were taught how to use that game and the users of Dansk Hverdag who played the game for the first time and the explanation lasted very short. Alternatively the controls could have been explained to each participant individually on a testing level (not to show the game before playing). Of course before playing the moderator should make sure that everyone can control the character fluently enough to able to walk and rotate the camera freely. Other option could be making a drastic re-design to make the controls easier. One participant during the evaluation said that it would be a lot easier to control the character on a touch screen. It could be reconsidered and consulted with the target group representatives.

6. 8. Room setup Rooms in which we have been doing the evaluation in were set up exactly for the number of students. The computers were spread next to each other so the participants could look at each other’s tests and games. The score was not that individual as it could be. To solve it, we should have split the class into two so that they were more spread or if fell into some logistic trouble, mix the games so that every second was Dansk Hverdag and every first was Lærdansk ABC. This way they would have a harder access to look into someone’s screen.

6. 9. Course of the test As the participants had opportunity to use “i don’t know” button during the word tests the moderator should have told them to pick it when they did not know the answer. It seemed like they were trying to do their best because they were graded. 55


6. 10. Sub conclusion The evaluation we performed had few different types of bias which could be reduced by following the steps mentioned above. Because of lack of time the game was tested in its current state which influenced the results strongly. In Re-Design section main points from the discussion are taken under reconstruction to create a vision of how the game could look after working more on it.

56


7. Re-Design: The very cause which made Dansk Hverdag lose in comparison to LĂŚrdansk was the refugees inability to control the character in a first person view. The reason for creating this type of game was to create a real life experience to give them the a more realistic experience (2.10.9. Genre). It is now clear that the mistake originated from a wrong premise based in the analysis. To properly create the design requirements we should have made a focus group interview, asking the participants about the product they would like to receive, instead of going through books, theses and different sources of theory.

7. 1. Controls: To continue with the existing concept there are some ways to improve the gameplay and experience for the target group and make the game more effective. The introduction controls screen in the current project may be not clear enough. To explain the problematic controls that impacted the experience of the participants, the game should present an interactive tutorial with animations of pressing the usable keys and moving the mouse to control the camera accompanied by comprehensible pictures of their use. An example of a tutorial level for the game can be seen in figure 7.1, where the player has to go to the bus. It should be played together with voice and text explanations. To be fully comprehensive the screen should also provide the users with a choice of different variants of the interface in their native language, to help them get a grip on and to easier understand the controls.

57


figure 7.1 The tutorial level where the player learn the control of the game

7. 2. Achievements, pause menu and new words learning Knowing that the participants did not learn any words mostly because of the lack in the understanding of controls there still are things that could be changed in the achievement and learning words system. The achievement page and the pause menu was not discovered because there was no indication that it could be accessed. For that feature to properly work there should be an information during the interactive tutorial that a pause menu exists and what it can be used for. Achievements occurred to be an interesting challenge for those who understood the controls during the evaluation and they are motivating elements which is proved to work in games. (2.8 Motivation) To better highlight their existence there should be a score bracket in the user interface and achievement popup implemented when one is earned.

58


7. 3. More Levels The limited time resulted in only one level being in the prototype. From the beginning it was planned to create a level select system, also if there was only one level. The level system would function as seeing in figure 7.2. The player would enter the bus and then have an opportunity to pick a location with different tasks inside. It would have comprehensible input in the form that each of the levels, had a title, mostly the name based on the location, and that would come out as sound as well being written on the screen. When the player than had picked a level, there would be an short animation of the bus shuts its door, and drive of to the place.

Fig 7.2 The level selection

59


7. 4. Challenging elements The evaluation revealed that the game needed more challenging aspects, especially for those who knew how to control the game properly. The lack of challenging elements may cause the player to feel bored in the long term. In the analysis we found that challenges can have a positive and entertaining effect on the player, if they are suitable compared the player’s skills (2.8. Motivation). There are many opportunities for different challenges in Dansk Hverdag. One of these opportunities could be a time limited challenge, making the player able to set a high score and try to beat. When the first level have been completed and the player begins to understand the controls, the time challenge could be implemented. This would create a more competitive aspect in the game. Additionally a challenge could be implemented through a reward system, which is designed in the achievement system, but has not been implemented. When a certain amount of point is gained the player should get a reward; a new job, a car or a house.

7. 5. ATM The current ATM only gives the option of seeing and reading the content of pictures, this was not the idea but the only solution we had in the limited time and skills to implement. It is a bit misleading when saying“indsæt kort”(insert card) without giving the opportunity to actually do it. For the ATM to work properly it was supposed to be a kind of minigame going through the actual actions described on the pictures. The actions should be based on mouse clicking followed by responding animations and change in the picture on the ATM.

60


8. Conclusion As we stated in our analysis a good solid integration begins with the language. This is how people communicate and with its help they start to understand the culture and norms. The purpose of this project was to create a better learning experience for the refugees, in order to provide them a good start with their language acquisition. This is done by building their vocabulary and thereby the fundamentals for the danish language. Right now the state of the art does not offer a lot of options to create a satisfying learning experience for every student which leads to our problem statement. “How can a game improve refugees’ learning experience when learning the basics of the Danish language compared to Lærdansk ABC?” To answer the final problem statement the main areas of the analysis are significant to notice. These are motivation, comprehensible input and vocabulary. The statement declares how a game can improve the learning experience. To solve this, we first have to look at the motivational factors. Firstly the motivation is key both when playing a game, but also when learning a new language. In the analysis we found, that without motivation, it is difficult to fully succeed in acquiring a new language. In our game everything the player needs to learn or understand is supported by comprehensible input. If the player should receive a good learning experience it is necessary for the player to learn something while feeling entertained. In the prototype presented at the evaluation the participants indicated that the achievements and feedback had some problematic aspects. We noticed five sources of bias influencing our evaluation and results we got from it. The biggest bias was the target group being different from what we expected after creating our analysis. However evaluation made it clear that even though the learning outcome of ‘Lærdansk ABC’ was higher than our game ‘Dansk Hverdag’, the learning experience was better for those who knew how to use a computer. Based on this we can conclude that computer experience is needed to get the full outcome of our game. With more challenge and a polished implementation ‘Dansk Hverdag’ could be a more exciting alternative or addition to current teaching materials at Lærdansk.

61


The results gained from both evaluation and discussion are influenced by many biases, and may not be entirely valid and reliable. The discussion also indicates that one of the major mistakes can be identified and solved already in the early stages of the project. According to the findings a proper research in collecting important information from the target group should have been conducted before starting to research. Furthermore the focus on choosing the correct and most appropriate test participants have not been adequate enough. Those major mistakes caused big bias and results in odd data.

62


9. Future works The qualitative and quantitative results from the evaluation suggest that educational games focused on gameplay and learning experience could teach in a more entertaining and interesting way, than games focused entirely on teaching. Future work on the project would include the addition of several elements and some experiments. It could be very interesting to see if other genres of games keeping the focus on gameplay and learning experience had similar or different impact on the learning and learning experience. This could be implemented in the form of mini games or bonus levels unlocking special achievements. Important elements to add for the game to reach a finished version would be voice acting and animation at first. The game in its current state seems quite static and not finished More characters should be added with interaction possibilities to get hints on what to do. Bump mapping and texture optimisation is also an important element to add for the game to reach the wanted esthetic experience. The world is very flat as it is now and more depth in the game could add to the immersion and thereby the experience given to the player. Different job simulations would add relevance for the refugees playing because this is where their future goes. By unlocking job opportunities from the achievement the game would get more goals to pursuit and with the enhanced relevance add much to the motivation both for learning and playing the game.

63


Reference ●

Adams, C. & Amory, A. & Naicker, K. & Vincent, J. (1999) The use of computer games as an educational tool: identification of appropriate game types and game elements. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 311-321.

Ainsworth, S. E. & Habgood, M. J. (2011) Motivating children to learn effectively: Exploring the value of intrinsic integration in educational games. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 169-206.

Asher, J. (1988) Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher’s guidebook. Los Gatos, California, CA.: Sky Oaks Productions

Barzilai, S. & Blau, I. (2014) Scaffolding game-based learning: Impact on learning achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences. Computers & Education, 70, 65-79.

Berbank-Green, B. & Cusworth, N. & Thompson, J. (2007) The computer game design course: principles, practices and techniques for the aspiring game designer. Thames & Hudson.

Bjørner, T. (2015) Qualitative Methods For Consumer Research. Hans Reitzels Forlag

Bourgonjon, J. & De Grove, F. & Van Looy, J. (2012) Digital games in the classroom? A contextual approach to teachers’ adoption intention of digital games in formal education. Computers in Human behavior, 28(6), 2023-2033.

Burt, M. & Dulay, H. & Krashen, S. (1982) Language Two. New York, NY, Oxford University Press

Bushman, R. & Madsen, H. (1976) A description and evaluation of Suggestopedia: A new teaching methodology. Washington, D.C.: On TESOL ‘76, p. 29-39.

Chang, H. Y. & Clark, D. B. & D’Angelo, C. M. & Nelson, B. C. & Martinez-Garza, M. & Slack, K. (2011) Exploring Newtonian mechanics in a conceptually-integrated digital game: Comparison of learning and affective outcomes for students in Taiwan and the United States. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2178-2195.

Clark, D. B. & Martinez—Garza, M. (2012) 18 Prediction and Explanation as Design Mechanics in Conceptually Integrated Digital Games to Help Players Articulate the Tacit Understandings They Build through Game Play. Games, learning, and society: Learning and meaning in the digital age, 279.

Chantes, P. & Hoffman, D. & Kinzer, C. K. & Turkay, S. & Vicari, C. (2015) Toward Understanding the Potential of Games for Learning: Learning Theory, Game Design 64


Characteristics, and Situating Video Games in Classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 31(1-2), 2-22. doi: 10.1080/07380569.2014.890879 ●

Cotman, C. W. & McGaugh, J. L. (1980) Behavioral Neuroscience: An Introduction. Academic Press, Inc.

Dansk Flygtningehjælp (2014, August 28) Lektiehjælp og samtaletræning til voksne udlændinge. Retrieved from http://www.frivillignet.dk/frivillig-i-dfh/materialer/tips-ograad/?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=10170

Elmer, D. (2015) Udlændinge bliver væk fra danskkurser. Dansk arbejdsgiverforening.

Ettinger, R. H. (2011) Psychology The Science of Behaviour, 4th Edition. BVT Publishing

Fielding, L. & Wilson, P. (1988) Growth in Reading and How Children Spend their Time Outside of School. Reading research Quarterly 23, p. 285-303.

Folse, K. S. (2004) Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Ganschow, L. & Sparks, R. L. (2007) Is the foreign language classroom anxiety scale measuring anxiety or language skills?. Foreign Language Annals, 40(2), 260-287.

Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1959) Motivational variables in second-language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 13(4), 266.

Gee, J. P. (2003) What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 20-20.

Grego, J. & Vesselinov, R. (2012, December) Duolingo Effectiveness Study. City University of New York, USA.

Hamari, J. Koivisto, J. & Sarsa, H. (2014, January) Does gamification work?--a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 3025-3034). IEEE.

Hammond, R. (1988) Accuracy versus communicative competence: The acquisition of grammar in the seconds language classroom. Hispania 71, p 408-417.

Harmer, J. (2007) The Practice of English Language Teaching; 4th Edition. Pearson Educational Limited.

Kapp, K. M. (2012) The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons.

Kote, Z. & Vito, E. (2011) Educational Games As An Effective Technique In Learning Of Foreign Languages. European Scientific Journal, Vol. 23.

Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon: Oxford. 65


Krashen, S. (1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY: Longman.

Krashen, S. (1989) Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for the Input Hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, Vol 74, No. 4, p. 440-464.

Krashen, S. (1991) The Input Hypothesis: An Update. Linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art, 409-431.

Krashen, S. (1998) Comprehensible output? School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, CA, USA.

Lærdansk (15. December, 2015) Dansk Uddannelse 2. Retrieved from: http://laerdansk.dk/uddannelser/danskuddannelse-2

MacIntyre, P. D. (2002) Motivation, anxiety and emotion in second language acquisition. Individual differences and instructed language learning, 2, 45-68.

Malone, T. W. (September, 1980) What makes things fun to learn? Heuristics for designing instructional computer games. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSMALL symposium and the first SIGPC symposium on Small systems (pp. 162-169). ACM.

Marsden, E. & Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2013) Second language learning theories, Third Edition. Routledge.

Moursund, D. G. (2006) Introduction to using games in education: A guide for teachers and parents. University of Oregon, USA.

Nation, P. (1994) New Ways in Teaching Vocabulary. New Ways in TESOL Series: Innovative Classroom Techniques. TESOL, 1600 Cameron Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314.

Norman, D. A. (2013) The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic books.

Novak, J. (2007) Game Development Essentials, Second Edition. Delmar Cengage.

Palmer, H. (1921) The Principles of Language Study. Oxford University Press 1964.

Portnow, J. (2008) The power of tangential learning. Edge Online.

Rath, R. (2015) Game Criticism as Tangential Learning Facilitator: The Case of Critical Intel. Journal of Games Criticism, 2(1), 1-9.

Rice, E.G. (1986) The Everyday Activities of Adults: Implications for Prose Recall - Part I. Educational Gerontology 12.

Said, Y. & Wegman, E. (2011) Color theory and design. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 3(2), 104-117.

Social- og Integrationsministeriet (2013) Målrettet integration – et fælles ansvar. PRinfo Trekroner.

66


The Danish Immigration Service (2015, August 7) The Danish Immigration Service. Retrieved from https://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/authorities/the_danish_immigration_service/

Udenrigsudvalget (2014, May 5) udviklingsministeren

af

14.

april

p rgsm l fra 2014.

denrigsudvalget

Folketinget

(ft.dk),

l handels- og Retrieved

from

http://www.ft.dk/samling/20131/almdel/uru/spm/162/svar/1133738/1365563.pdf (28/10/2015). ●

Udlændingestyrelsen (2015, August 31) Tal på udlændingeområdet. Retrieved from http://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/E3C50EA0-BD36-4DDD-9C8D7AAF44DE1F12/0/seneste_tal_udlaendingeeomraadet.pdf

Voge, W. (1981) Testing the validity of Krashen’s input hypothesis. In International Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA), Lund, Sweden.

Watkins, D.A. & Yu, B. (2008) Motivational and cultural correlates of second language acquisition: An investigation of international students in the universities of the People’s Republic of China. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 31 (2), 17.1–17.22. DOI:10.2104/aral0817.

67


Appendices Appendix 1 Observation Sheet

68


Appendix 2 Evaluation Result sheet

69


Appendix 3 Arabic Questionnaire

70


Appendix 4

English questionnaire 71


Appendix 5 LĂŚrdansk ABC pre game word test

72


73


Appendix 6 LĂŚrdansk ABC post game word test

74


75


Appendix 7 Dansk Hverdag pre game word test

76


77


Appendix 8 Dansk Hverdag post game word test

78


79


Appendix 9 Expert Interview

CD Included

80


Dansk Hverdag P1