You are here:

Evaluating coursework in computer games degrees: Students and assessors as virtual characters
ARTICLE

, , ,

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology Volume 25, Number 1, ISSN 0814-673X Publisher: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education

Abstract

This paper explores a relatively new area in the design and development of assessment procedures for the evaluation of coursework and student performance on computer and video games degrees. Emphasis is placed on an assessment which involves the development of and interaction in a virtual world, where lecturers and students are represented as virtual characters. The establishment of a new assessment framework for games degrees is outlined, followed by the findings from in depth interviews with students and lecturers concerning its implementation. The results provide a self reflective but critical insight on how existing assessment techniques may be adapted for the growing demands and popularity of games courses, as well as issues surrounding the appraisal of undergraduate work within virtual environments. Recommendations are provided on how similar assessments may be conducted in the future.

Citation

Ip, B., Capey, M., Baker, A., Carroll, J. & Carroll, J. (2009). Evaluating coursework in computer games degrees: Students and assessors as virtual characters. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1),. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved August 13, 2024 from .

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Amory, A., Naicker, K., Vincent, J. & Adams, C. (1999) The use of computer games as an educational tool: Identification of appropriate game types and game elements. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 311-321.
  2. Cagiltay, N. (2007). Teaching software engineering by means of computer-game development: Challenges and opportunities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 405-415.
  3. Carless, D. (2002). The ‘mini-viva’ as a tool to enhance assessment for learning. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(4), 353-363.
  4. Cheung, D. & Siu, B. (2002). Some management issues on computer game development for primary education. The Electronic Library, 20(2), 119-124.
  5. Clark, R. & Choi, S. (2005). Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 209-225.
  6. Consalvo, M. & Dutton, N. (2006). Game analysis: Developing a methodological toolkit for the qualitative study of games, Game Studies, 6(1). [viewed 4 Dec 2007]. Http://gamestudies.org/0601/articles/consalvo_dutton
  7. Davis, M. & Karunathilake, I. (2005). The place of the oral examination in today’s assessment systems. Medical Teacher, 27(4), 294-297.
  8. De Aguilera, M. & Mendiz, A. (2003). Videogames and education: Education in the face of a “parallel school”. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 1-14.
  9. Develop (2007). Isn’t it all academic? Develop, Issue 69, 6-7. Hertfordshire: Intent Media.
  10. EDGE (2006). Get into games: Your guide to working in the videogame industry. Supplement. Bath: Future Publishing.
  11. EDGE (2007). Get into games: Your guide to working in the videogame industry. Supplement, Bath: Future Publishing.
  12. ELSPA (2007). Computer and videogames industry age ratings and codes of practice. Http://www.elspa.com/rating/ [viewed 4 Dec 2007, verified 1 Feb 2009]
  13. Elwood, J. & Klenowski, V. (2002). Creating communities of shared practice: The challenges of assessment use in learning and teaching, Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(3), 243-256.
  14. Feinstein, A., Mann, S. & Corsun, D. (2002). Charting the experiential territory: Clarifying definitions and uses of computer simulation, games, and role play. Journal of Management Development, 21(10), 732-744.
  15. Fry, H., Ketteridge, S. & Marshall, S. (1999). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
  16. Guest, K.E. & Murphy, D.S. (2000). In support of memory retention: A cooperative oral final exam. Education, 121(2), 350-354.
  17. Gulz, A. & Haake, M. (2006). Design of animated pedagogical agents– a look at their look. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 322-339.
  18. Hansen, S. (2004). A constructivist approach to project assessment. European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(2), 211-220.
  19. Hasson, F. (2007). Quoted in: Isn’t it all academic? Develop (Issue 69). Hertfordshire: Intent Media, 7.
  20. Hong, J-C. & Liu, M-C. (2003). A study on thinking strategy between experts and novices of computer games. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 245–258.
  21. IGDA (2003). IGDA curriculum framework. The study of games and game development. Http://www.igda.org/academia/curriculum_framework.php [viewed 4 Dec 2007].
  22. Inglis, A., Ling, P. & Joosten, V. (2002). Delivering digitally: Managing the transition to the knowledge media (2nd Ed). London: Kogan Page.
  23. Ip, B. & Jacobs, G. (2004). Quantifying games design. Design Studies, 25(6), 607-624.
  24. Jeffery, M. (2007). The war for talent. Develop, Issue 69, 49-50. Hertfordshire: Intent Media.
  25. Kim, Y., Baylor, A. & Shen, E. (2007). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The impact of agent emotion and gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 220-234.
  26. Maier, P. & Warren, A. (2000). Integrating technology in learning and teaching: A practical guide for educators. London: Kogan Page.
  27. Malliet, S. (2006). Adapting the principles of ludology to the method of videogame content analysis. Game Studies, 7(1). [viewed 4 Dec 2007, verified 1 Feb 2009] http://gamestudies.org/0701/articles/malliet
  28. Malouf, D. (1987). The effect of instructional computer games on continuing student motivation. The Journal of Special Education, 21(4), 27-38.
  29. McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A. & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of games. TEEM. [viewed 4 Dec 2007, verified 1 Feb 2009]. Http://www.teem.org.uk/publications/teem_gamesined_full.pdf
  30. Moreno, R. (2005). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Moundridou, M. & Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 253-261.
  32. Oyen, A-S. & Bebko, J. (1996). The effects of computer games and lesson contexts on children’s mnemonic strategies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62, 173-189.
  33. Phillips, R. (1997). The developer’s handbook to interactive multimedia: A practical guide for educational applications. London: Kogan Page.
  34. Pillay, H., Brownlee, J. & Wilss, L. (1999). Cognition and recreational computer games: Implications for educational technology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 203-216.
  35. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning, New York: McGraw-Hill.
  36. Rai, S., Wong, K. & Cole, P. (2006). Game construction as a learning tool. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series: Archive Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Game Research and Development, 223, 231-236.
  37. Rieber, L. (2005). Multimedia learning in games, simulations, and microworlds In R. Mayer, (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., Grau, V., Lagos, F.,
  38. Lopez, X., Lopez, V., Rodriguez, P. & Salinas, M. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: Design and assessment of educational videogames for first and second grade students. Computers& Education, 40, 71-94.
  39. Sanches, J.D. (2007). Job’s a good ‘un. Develop, Issue 69, 37-46. Hertfordshire: Intent Media.
  40. Shallaly, G. & Ali, E. (2004). Use of video-projected structured clinical examination (ViPSCE) instead of the traditional oral (viva) examination in the assessment of final year medical students. Education for Health, 17(1), 17-26.
  41. Sperry, F. (2006). Quoted in: Studio profile– EA UK Studios. Develop, Issue 65, 24-25, Herfordshire: Intent Media.
  42. Sweetser, P. & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 3(3), 1-24.
  43. Winning, T., Lim, E. & Townsend, G. (2005). Student experiences of assessment in two problembased dental curricula: Adelaide and Dublin. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 100 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2009, 25(1)

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References