Framework

In our board game project, we are exploring a framework developed by Klabbers (2009) that views games through the lenses of social systems and multimodal texts, and thus allows us to describe games across different dimensions of interest to us. These dimensions help us analyze game actors, resources, and rules, which gives us a language to consider games as learning objects for potential use in middle and high school science classrooms. In what follows, we describe these dimensions and highlight some example questions that we are exploring as part of each dimension.

Game Syntax. This dimension calls attention to the formal system of the game, or the actual game actors, resources, and rules. The game actor syntax includes the game participants, including game players (e.g., students) and facilitators (e.g., teachers). The game resource syntax includes the game board (or the space where the game is played), game pieces, and a reference system describing game positions (e.g., a game board). The game rule set syntax describes how the game space is manipulated, how the game pieces move over time, how different states of the game pieces on the board are evaluated, what constitutes the initial and final game positions, and game completion rules.

In a science education context, analyzing the game syntax would involve reviewing the game’s basic goals and activity structures as described in the rules, as well as the game board and resources, to begin to gauge if the game could be appropriate as a learning object for the target student audience, the teacher, and the classroom context. Some example questions we are pondering related to game syntax include:

Will the game be manageable in the classroom in terms of game resources? For example, are there too many resources, do resources require dexterity to manipulate, can the resources and/or board be easily disturbed in the game space?
Will the game be manageable in the classroom with the number of players required for a game session?
Do players compete with each other (as is the case in most traditional games), or do players cooperate with each other as teams (and will these player setups work within the particular classroom context)?
Will it be possible to easily divide students into player groups or teams needed to play the game?
Is it possible that the rule set syntax could support student learning of scientific practices and/or ideas? Might the rule set syntax support other types of practices that may be advantageous for learning, such as collaborative practice, metacognitive practices, etc.?

Game Semantics. This dimension calls attention to how game participants interpret and make meaning from the game syntax, and how the game corresponds with their conceptions of the ideas from the game’s content area. The game actor semantics are the roles that game participants take on during the game, and how those roles influence the resources, moves, and information they access during the game. The game resource semantics include the symbolic meanings of the game pieces in the game space (e.g., different colored cubes represent various diseases), and the symbolic interpretation of the placement of pieces at any given time to define a particular state of the game system. The game rule set semantics describe the relationships between the roles, the manner in which roles are allowed to interact (e.g., who interacts with whom and when in the game), in addition to any other conventions, procedures, rituals, etc. beyond the formal syntactical rule sets that may emerge or be developed.

In a science education context, analyzing the game semantics involves exploring how game participants may interpret (or misinterpret) the different game-related and science-related concepts of the game (e.g., are there parts of the game that may introduce incorrect or misleading science ideas?). Analyzing the game semantics can thus help identify areas where game modifications or clarifications may be needed, and where additional support and scaffolding could be introduced to support both game play and the learning of science-related concepts and practices introduced by the game that will be expanded upon in the classroom. Some example questions we are pondering related to game semantics include:

How do students interpret the roles featured in the game and do those interpretations correspond with the game developers’ intent?
Do the role-specific activities and identities correspond with science-related professional roles in ways that might support students in learning about different aspects of science practices and professional activity? Do the symbolic relationships betwen the roles featured in the game make sense?
Do the game resources and game boards make sense to students in terms of portraying science-related concepts and practices? Are the game resources and boards accurate, or do they take liberties in how they portray science concepts and practices and do students attend to this?
How is the nature of science portrayed in the game, and how do students interpret those images?

Game Pragmatics. This dimension calls attention to the manner in which a gaming session is designed, prepared, conducted, and assessed by the game facilitator who will run the game. The game actor pragmatics describe the possible learning goals for the players and the learning approaches to be taken in the context (e.g., the science learning goals being addressed in the game session). The game resource pragmatics describe the physical game setup with the playing space and resources, including the formal game resources from the game syntax, along with other resources from outside the game that could aid players with interpretation and meaning making during the game (e.g., the actual game setup, including the game board and pieces as designed, along with possible new resources, alternative resources, or game board modification developed for a game session). The game rule sets pragmatics include the manner in which the rules sets are developed for the game session, including using formal rule sets from the game syntax along with possible informal rules developed by players for the game session.

In a science education context, the game pragmatics is the layer that we want to identify and develop in collaboration with science teachers to best support them (i.e., the game facilitators) with using science-themed board games in an educational setting. With respect to the potential game pragmatics that need to be developed or modified, we envision utilizing our analyses of the game syntax and semantics to identify what aspects of the game would need to be developed or supported along with the social dimensions of the game pragmatics. Some example questions we are pondering related to game pragmatics include:

How can we help ensure that the game session supports some element of science learning?
Do teachers think that the science concepts and practices featured in the game correspond with science ideas and practices with which they are engaging students?
What types of formative assessments would we need to create in order to better understand what students might be learning from their engagement with the game?
What learning goals for the game session should be identified to shape the manner in which the game can connect to the curricular activities in the classroom?
Do abstract game components need to be modified or replaced to help students make more sense of the science concepts and practices being represented?
How might any scientific inaccuracies in the game (with respect to ideas, practices, and/or the nature of science) be useful learning objects for students, and will student learning with respect to these inaccuracies need to be supported with additional materials or information?
Does the game space need to be restricted to the game board, or can it be expanded to a broader setting to make the game more immersive (e.g., using a school gymnasium floor as the "game board" with students serving as the game components in that game space)?
Are there rules modifications that can maintain the essential game play while introducing new activity that is more conducive to science learning goals?
Are any rule modifications or other variants needed to make the game more accessible to the players, both in terms of understanding the game play or understanding the science content portrayed in the game?
Is there a sequence of rules, perhaps of increasing complexity, that can better scaffold players to address a range of science learning goals?
Are there points in the rules when the teacher/game facilitator can momentarily halt the game to review certain concepts about science content, practices, or other information needed to play the game or address the learning goals in the classroom?

In this workshop, we would like to collectively explore this framework, use it to explore the notion of whether such board games can be used as learning tools in the classroom, and think about what kind of supports teachers would need to use games in this way given their time and curricular constraints. By taking a multimodal, social system view of board games in the classroom we can consider: the role that games can play within a learning environment, how games can be connected to classroom curricular goals, and possible approaches for developing or modifying the rules and resources of a game to help make more cohesive connections to classroom learning goals.

With this framework, we can think about teachers as game facilitators and see how we can support the game pragmatics by developing materials, supports, and potential game modifications so games become more integrated, effective learning tools for the classroom. We can outline a larger board game analysis approach where we (1) analyze the game syntax and semantics to connect a game session to learning goals and other curricular/pedagogical resources, (2) potentially modify the game rules and resources to develop game variants that more closely align the game with science content and learning goals, and (3) support teachers with the game pragmatics by developing resources for enacting game sessions and connecting those sessions to curricular goals. And ultimately, at a higher level, we can also discuss the issues, challenges, and supports needed when we propose to integrate new tools--analog or digital--into classroom settings, and to also consider the role of play in learning.