MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157694383 · doi:10.1108/ijilt-01-2021-0003

Learning about serious game design and development at the K-12 level

2021· article· en· W3157694383 on OpenAlexaff
Bill Kapralos

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Information and Learning Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGame designOriginalitySet (abstract data type)EntertainmentVideo game developmentPlan (archaeology)Mathematics educationGame DeveloperComputer scienceInstructional designMultimediaPsychologyCreativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Very little effort has been dedicated to the teaching of serious game design and development. At the post-secondary level, very few courses dedicated to serious game design and development exist. At the K-12 level, although (entertainment) game design and programming instruction are becoming more widespread, serious game design and development is ignored. This study aims to present a series of lesson plans that allow K-12 teachers to introduce students to serious game design and development. Design/methodology/approach The lesson plans include both a didactic and applied component and are intended to provide students with an introduction to serious games and their design and development while making students aware of the many career paths within this exciting growing domain. They can also be completed entirely remotely lending themselves nicely to online instruction to facilitate the COVID-19 shutdowns and the resulting move to e-learning. Findings Although several high-school teachers and several elementary school children were consulted during the development of the lesson plans, the lesson plans have only recently been made available, and therefore, there is a lack of any teacher or student feedback available regarding their use. Informally, several elementary school children found the lessons to be fun, interesting and informative. Originality/value There are currently no existing courses or lesson plans focusing on serious game design and development at the K-12 level, thus making this set of lesson plan novel and unique.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Information and Learning TechnologySame topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207