Game Design for Information Literacy Instruction

Prospectus

Daniel J. Pool

October 4th, 2016

 Pool 2

Table of Contents

Abstract Pg. 3

Research Problem Pg. 4

Conceptual Framework Pg. 4

Literature Review Pg. 6

Study Proposal Pg. 7

References Pg. 10
 Pool 3

Abstract

This proposal describes a research study in which a game will be created to teach

information literacy based on Association of College and Research Libraries’ Competency

Standards. The proposed research will utilize several fields of research in order to build a

framework for future instructional design. The study will present a sample of students with a

video game that they will play on their own. Afterward, they will answer a few short survey

questions and a test. A second group of students will only take the survey and the test as a

control. The test will be based on the research instrument Tool for Real-Time Assessment of

Information Literacy Skills as developed by Kent State University. The research proposed builds

on a current research need in the field information literacy instruction in regards to games.
 Pool 4

Research Problem

How can games be designed to instruct information literacy? There is a wide range of

research supporting that games can teach complex tasks to a player (Chou, 2015), and many of

these reports promise results that suggest games will revolutionize the field of education (Pettey,

2012). However, many of these positive reports come from businesses that specialize in creating

gamified programs for corporations at a cost (Walz & Deterding, 2015). Empirical studies do

overwhelmingly suggest that gamification has a positive effect on increasing desired behaviors

(Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014). There is little peer-reviewed theoretical structure to

understand why games succeed or fail at the design level. Experiments have offered radical

results ranging from ‘games are the best teaching tool ever conceived’ to ‘games are a waste of

time’ (Zichermann, 2013). The varying results could be because of a lack of theoretical structure

in designing courses. Which elements elicit these changes are understudied. A framework is

needed in order to codify what design elements can elicit desired responses.

Within Information Science, there is abundant research on information literacy

instruction (Koufogiannakis and Wiebe, 2006). Likewise, in Education fields, there have been

several studies on the use and design of games for teaching many subjects (Clark, Tanner-Smith,

and Killingsworth, 2016). Using both disciplines, this study proposes to use information literacy

instructional frameworks to design an educational game.

Conceptual Framework

The field of Information Science has several frameworks for discussing information

seeking behavior. Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process (ISP) model incorporates thoughts,

feelings, and actions of the user as they search to fulfill information need (Kuhlthau, 1999).

Users begin their search with uncertainty about what they need or are looking for and then move
 Pool 5

toward finding what they need. The end result is not always satisfactory but the user narrows

their search over repeated cycles. This model is applicable to how players learn game mechanics.

At first, a player may not understand how to interact with a game. Over time, however, the game

introduces elements to them that build upon one another till they understand how to play. When

they fail, the game often has immediate feedback to guide the player toward what they should do

to reach their goal.

Games have been studied in the Education field for decades largely in regards to

motivation (Ebner & Holzinger, 2005). The theory being that because games are intrinsically

motivating then students would want to play them and would learn as a side effect thereof. This

was largely implemented through gamification or the introduction of game design ideas in

nongame contexts (Brigham, 2015). This would be like gaining points for every completed

assignment in a class. Gamification in this way is often treated as adding game-like elements out

of context to a non-game task (Burke, 2014). Detractors point out that this kind of gamification

often can actually harm players because the design does not add understanding or entertainment

to the task (Zichermann, 2013).

The goal of this study is to combine education and information science principles to

optimize the design of an educational information literacy games. Information Science and

Education have strong theories on how students learn and find the information they need.

Together, these theories can describe the design features that have the potential to create a

working model information literacy lessons through games. The proposed framework for this

study is a combination of Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process and the ACRL standards. The

Information Search Process will be used as a theoretical philosophy for the design of the game.
 Pool 6

The ACRL standards will be used as an assessment instrument for measuring student

performance.

Review of Literature

Games in education have been in vogue as it was found that students may spend as much

as ten or fifteen hours per week playing them voluntarily (Eichenbaum, Bavelier, & Green,

2014). Finding a way to motivate students to spend that much on their studies would ‘change the

game’ of education. Games are found to be intrinsically motivating to players as they reward

them in small doses over the course of a play session. Schools, like Quest to Learn, have used

these game design mechanics to inform their programs and help involve students actively in their

own studies (Toppo, 2015). Gamifying learning with scores and badges can encourage students

through competition (Brigham, 2015). This kind of engagement creates mastery of subjects

through a sense of self-efficacy (McGonigal, 2010). Students learning through games tend to

learn more, quicker, and for longer than other mediums (Young et al, 2012).

Libraries have sought to use games as a way to involve patrons in programs for several

years (Cote, Kraemer, Nahl, & Ashford, 2012). Even creating virtual reference desks online to

help patrons. Games require users to perform many complex mechanics to operate within the

virtual world but operate below the user’s passing perception (Becker, 2013). This means that

games can instruct players on how to navigate their worlds without additional materials, study

guides, or mentors in ways that other disciplines have difficulty conveying.

For example, libraries have used Minecraft to teach subjects such as digital citizenship

(Hill, 2014). One study took several elementary age children and let them play the popular block

placing game without direction until they understood the game. Once they understood the game,

they were given a task to work towards as a group. Then the librarians overseeing the project let
 Pool 7

them create their own groups, manage their own projects, and settle disputes with supervision. At

the end of the project, the students were able to verbalize the role of digital citizenship and

describe situations from the program that illustrated these disciplines.

Educational games have come under fire recently as their results have been overstated

(Hamilton, 2010). The issue being that research shows positive learning in the specific task that

the game centers. That learning, however, does not seem to carry over to other subjects or

learning areas. Lumosity, for example, is one of the largest ‘brain games’ companies that

advertised being able to stop dementia, reverse Alzheimer’s, and increase memory (Noё, 2016).

After a lawsuit, the company is having to pay customers back after misleading. An investigation

found that the company did not have significant research to support their claims. The scientific

community is conflicted over these ‘brain games’, however, as studies show but positive and

negative results (Dvorsky, 2016). This is because games have overwhelmingly shown to increase

knowledge in subjects as long as they were only tested on the specific task covered in the game.

One meta-analysis suggested this is because of poor evaluation and scientific process in the

games field (Simons et al, 2016). These findings suggested that more studies with proper

procedures are necessary to understand the underlying principles that previous research has

missed.

Study Proposal

For this study, a video game based on the information literacy instruction standards will

be created. A control group and an experimental group will be chosen at random from the

respondents to complete the research. The control will be given a survey and a short test over

information literacy objectives. The experimental group will be presented with information

literacy problems based on ACRL standards in a digital library environment and then complete
 Pool 8

the survey and short test. The surveys will ask for basic demographic information. The short tests

will assess the participant’s understanding of basic library skills.

The game will mimic a library setting. There will be distinct sections found in real

libraries. Students will be presented a series of problems that they have to solve using

information literacy skills. The problems in game will mimic real world applications of using a

library. Each problem will be tied to an ACRL standard. To successfully complete the game,

each player will have to complete at least one performance indicator for each of the five

standards. The research will be considered successful if the experimental group shows an

average higher score on their post intervention assessment than the control group without an

intervention.

For this research, the game will be set in a fantasy world in which the player takes on the

role of a student completing an assignment within a timelimit. The student will have to complete

five tasks that align to the five ACRL standards of an information literate student. The five

standards are the information literate student can;

1. Determine the extent of information needed.

2. Access needed information effectively and efficiently.

3. Evaluate information sources critically.

4. Use information to effectively accomplish a specific purpose.

5. Understand economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information

and its technology.

In the game, this will be represented by the player researching a task. They will be

presented a research problem and will have to use the resources available to them to decide how

best to complete that task. First, the player will need to identify what they need in order to
 Pool 9

complete their task (Eisenberg, Lowe, and Spitzer, 2004). Then they will determine their

research strategy with the resources available to them in the game. After which, they will follow

through on this strategy by locating sources in game to fulfill the information need that they

have. They will collection and extract the information they need from the sources they collect.

They will then organize the information they need into a logical order. Lastly, they will present

this information and have it judged by the game.

In game terms, this will take on the form of two students in a magical school completing

a ‘spell’. These spells can only be completed with well researched information that is properly

cited and organized. The player will have to collect notes, references, resources, and information

from multiple sources in the game to complete this spell. Different sections of the game will

have periodicals, fiction works, non-fiction works, reference items, and computer resources that

be similar to real-life research materials a student might encounter. Completing each standard

will reward the player with immediate feedback so as to the extent that they understood their

task.

Both the experimental group and the control group will take a brief survey afterwards to

assess their use of games and general demographics. The questions will not ask for personal

information beyond self-reported sex and age group. In addition, the experimental group will rate

the game’s content and their enjoyment of the game.

Lastly, both groups will be take a short test over the materials in the game. The test will

be the standardized TRAILS (Tool for Real-Time Assessment of Information Literacy Skills)

assessment tool. It utilizes 30 multiple-choice items, 6 questions over each of the 5 ACRL

standards and is aligned to Common Core Standards. Specifically, the 12th Grade General

Content module will be used. The test has been used by instructional librarians to measure
 Pool 10

student knowledge of information literacy skills. The tool is checked regularly by subject matter

experts and reviewed for reliability and validity.

Participants will be recruited from the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma’s

school population. All students will be sent an invitation to join the research. Those that reply

will be divided randomly into control and experimental groups based on their college

classification. Each group will attempt to have approximately similar numbers of freshmen,

sophomores, juniors, seniors, non-degree seeking, and post graduate students. The target size for

each group is at least 30 members for a total of at least 60 participants.

 Pool 11

References

ACRL. "Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education."

http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.

Becker, Bernd. "Gamification of Library Instruction." Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian

32, no. 3 (2013): 199-202.

Bogost, Ian. "Persuasive Games: Exploitationware." Gamasutra. 2001.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134735/persuasive_games_exploitationware.php

Brigham, Tara J. 2015. "An Introduction to Gamification: Adding Game Elements for

Engagement." Medical Reference Services Quarterly 34, no. 4: 471-80.

Burke, Brian. "How Gamification Motivates the Masses." Forbes & Gartner Inc. 2014.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gartnergroup/2014/04/10/how-gamification-motivates-the-

masses/#1ffd57bd660f.

Chaplin, Heather. "I Don't Want To Be a Superhero." Slate. 2011.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/gaming/2011/03/i_dont_want_to_be_a_superhe

ro.html.

Chou, Yu-kai. "A Comprehensive List of 90+ Gamification Cases with ROI Stats." 2013.

http://yukaichou.com/gamification-examples/gamification-stats-figures/.

Clark, Douglas B, Emily E Tanner-Smith, and Stephen S Killingsworth. 2016. "Digital Games,

Design, and Learning." 86, no. 1, 79-122.

Denise Cote, Robin Ashford, Beth Kraemer, and Diane Nahl. "Academic Librarians in Second

Life." Journal of Library Innovation 3, no. 1 (2012): 20-47.

Dvorsky, George. "New Study Could Be the Death Knell of Brain-Training Games." Gizmodo.

2016.
 Pool 12

Ebner, and Holzinger. "Successful Implementation of User-centered Game Based Learning in

Higher Education: An Example from Civil Engineering." Computers & Education 49, no.

3 (2007): 873-90.

Eichenbaum, Adam, Daphne Bavelier, and C. Shawn Green. 2014. "Video Games: Play That

Can Do Serious Good." American Journal of Play 7, no. 1: 50-72.

Eisenberg, Michael B., Carrie A. Lowe, and Kathleen L. Spitzer. Information Literacy: Essential

Skills for the Information Age. 2nd ed. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2004.

Eyal, Nir, and Stuart Luman. "It’s Not All Fun And Games: The Pros and Cons of Gamification

at Work." 2014. Nir & Far. http://www.nirandfar.com/2014/09/its-not-all-fun.html.

Hamari, Juho, Jonna Koivisto, and Harri Sarsa. "Does Gamification Work? — A Literature

Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification." 47th Hawaii International Conference on

System Science (2014): 3025-34.

Hamilton, Jon. "Brain Training Games Won't Pump Up IQs, Study Says." NPR. 2010.

Hill, Valerie. "Digital citizenship through game design in Minecraft." New Library World 116,

no. 7/8: 369-382. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts. 2014.

TRAILS. Kent State University Libraries. http://www.trails-9.org/. 2016.

Koufogiannakis, Denise, and Natasha Wiebe. "Effective Methods for Teaching Information

Literacy Skills to Undergraduate Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

"Evidence Based Library & Information Practice 1, no. 3: 3-43. Library Literature &

Information Science. 2006.

Kuhlthau, Carol Collier. "Accommodating the User's Information Search Process: Challenges for

Information Retrieval System Designers." Bulletin of the American Society for

Information Science 25, no. 3 (1999): 12.

 Pool 13

Marczewski, Andrze J. "Why does Gamification Fail?." Gamified. 2013.

https://www.gamified.uk/2013/05/06/why-does-gamification-fail/.

McGonigal, Jane. Gaming can make a better world. Video. TED Talks, 2010.

Noe, Alva. "So Far, There's No Magic Bullet For The Mind." NPR. 2016.

Pettey, Christy. "Gartner Says by 2014, 80 Percent of Current Gamified Applications Will Fail to

Meet Business Objectives Primarily Due to Poor Design." Gartner. 2012.

http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2251015.

Simons, Daniel J., Walter R. Boot, Neil Charness, Susan E. Gathercole, Christopher F. Chabris,

David Z. Hambrick, and Elizabeth A. L. Stine-Morrow. "Do “Brain-Training” Programs

Work?" Psychological Science in the Public Interest 17, no. 3 (2016): 103-86.

Toppo, Greg. The Game Believes in You. New York: Palgrave MacMillian Trade, 2015.

Tsung-Yen Chuang, and Wei-Fan Chen. "Effect of Computer-Based Video Games on Children:

An Experimental Study." Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning, 2007.

DIGITEL '07. The First IEEE International Workshop on, 2007, 114-18.

Walz, Steffen P., and Sebastian Deterding. The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues,

Applications. N.p.: MIT Press, 2015.

Young, Michael F, Stephen Slota, Andrew B Cutter, Gerard Jalette, Greg Mullin, Benedict Lai,

Zeus Simeoni, Matthew Tran, and Mariya Yukhymenko. "Our Princess Is in Another

Castle." Review of Educational Research 82, no. 1, 61-89.

Zichermann, Gabe. "Gamification: The Hard Truths." Huffington Post. 2013.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabe-zichermann/gamification_b_2516376.html.