A Reusable Multiplayer Game for Promoting Active School Transport: Development Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most children and adolescents in Sweden do not meet the recommended daily physical activity levels of the World Health Organization. Active school transport (AST) and gamification are potential methods for increasing children's daily physical activity. We previously developed a game named Tic-Tac-Training for promoting active transport at workplaces; however, the game has not been applied to AST. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to investigate how Tic-Tac-Training functions to promote AST among schoolchildren in northern Sweden, improve the game to be more suitable for schoolchildren, and construct a road map for future development based on children's ideas. METHODS: First, we developed Tic-Tac-Training using the Scrum agile software development method. Second, we conducted a questionnaire-based formative evaluation of the game with schoolchildren (n=16; 9/16, 56% male; 6/16, 38% female; and 1/16, 6% other aged 11-12 years) in Luleå, Sweden. Third, we conducted focus group interviews with 33 children (13/33, 39% male and 20/33, 61% female aged 12-13 years) to gather ideas for gamifying AST. We mapped the interview results to the Octalysis gamification framework and established a road map for future development. RESULTS: The formative evaluation revealed several issues, including a lack of interesting game features, lack of support for continuous engagement, disliked competitive features, and lack of incentives for discourse and participation. New features such as rewards, collectibles, and levels were implemented based on the results. The focus group interviews revealed additional ideas for gamifying AST, such as using avatars, in-game currency and trading, and context-sensitive tasks. CONCLUSIONS: The results have several potential impacts on how reusable, gamified AST interventions can be developed and what kind of gamification elements schoolchildren in northern Sweden wish to see. These results can interest game researchers and teachers who wish to apply gamification in school contexts. Finally, we aim to continue developing the game based on the road map.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".