MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414560940 · doi:10.34190/ecgbl.19.1.4148

It’s Going to be Amazing: Exploring Children’s Game Play and Making

2025· article· en· W4414560940 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer Jenson, Nora Perry, Suzanne de Castell

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Conference on Games Based Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Game designVideo gameCoding (social sciences)Game DeveloperIntervention (counseling)Video game developmentLevel design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on the results of a game-based learning study that had a twofold purpose: first we sought to find out what our study participants (ages 10-13) could tell us about their video game play habits at home and second to explore students use ofSuper Mario Maker 2 software on the Nintendo Switch Lite to design their own games. The study took place in two schools, one middle school and one elementary school, in the suburbs of a medium-sized city on Canada’s West coast. Two grade 6 classes participated in the study (n=44), and played Super Mario Maker 2 over 9 days, in pairs. Overall, the study found that all students had prior gameplay experience, meaning that no students struggled with the controls, nor did they need much assistance to build their own games, even though only a handful of participants reported having prior coding and/or game design experience. We also found that gameplay was a common leisure activity for most participants, with girls demonstrating significant skill and familiarity with games, challenging previous gender disparities in game play. This short intervention demonstrates how a commercial off the shelf game can be used to support students’ design-based thinking and making, with all participants managing to design a playable level by the end of the study.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Conference on Games Based LearningSame topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207