2. Starting date Oct 7, 2008 Funded by Microsoft Research $3 Million over 3 years 14 faculty at 7 universities

3. Organizational Structure Ken Perlin, Institute Director Jan Plass Institute Co-Director Development Education

4. Organizational Structure Ken Perlin, Institute Director Jan Plass Institute Co-Director Participating researchers M. Flanagan (Dartmouth) ‏ M. Gauthier (NYU) ‏ B. Homer (GC/CUNY) ‏ K.Isbister (NYU-Poly) ‏ C. Kinzer (Teachers College) C. Macklin (Parsons) ‏ K. Milne (NYU) ‏ A. Phelps (RIT) ‏ C. Skelton (NYU-Poly) J. Wein (NYU-Poly)

5. Organizational Structure Development Team Ken Perlin, Director Andy Phelps Karl Skelton Joel Wein

6. Organizational Structure Education Team Jan Plass, director Mary FlanaganBruce Homer Katherine IsbisterKatherine MilneChunk Kinzer

7. Kaelan Doyle-Myerscough All-around game expert Mitch Resnick (MIT) Scratch Jaron Lanier Virtual reality Will Wright (Maxis) SIMS, Spore,... Microsoft Representative Organizational Structure Scientific Advisory Board

8. Organizational Structure External Institute Advisors For specific projects where other expertise is needed, additional researchers serve in an advisory capacity to the Institute.

9. Research questions: Teacher Support Design Factors Successful Integration Lab versus Authentic Setting Interaction of Factors

10. From design factors to learning outcomes: Factual Knowledge Factual Knowledge Conceptual Knowledge Conceptual Knowledge Procedural Knowledge Procedural Knowledge Meta-cognitive Knowledge Meta-cognitive Knowledge Affective Outcomes Affective Outcomes ?

11. From design factors to learning outcomes: Educational Game Design Principles Educational Game Design Principles Factual Knowledge Factual Knowledge Conceptual Knowledge Conceptual Knowledge Procedural Knowledge Procedural Knowledge Meta-cognitive Knowledge Meta-cognitive Knowledge Curricular Integration Educational Games Educational Games Game-based Learning Approach Affective Outcomes Affective Outcomes

12. Research Plan Game Design Principles Game Design Principles Game Prototypes Features of Effective Educational Games Features of Effective Educational Games Review Research on Games Review Research on Games Observation of Game Play Observation of Game Play Development Team: Implement Development Team: Implement Education Team: Empirical Research Education Team: Empirical Research

13. Anatomy of a game: 1.Player’s understanding 2.Game mechanic - the rules of play 3.Aesthetic design - graphics, sound, music, … 4.Narrative Drive – the story that moves the game forward 5.Extrinsic rewards – points, ranking, … 6.Intrinsic rewards – improving skills

14. Travel along surface of “Maximal flow” (Csíkszentmihályi):

15. xx (yy) ‏ –zz Wide-ranging exploration Focused exploration Design Confirmation PHASE 1PHASE 2 PHASE 3 200820092011 PHASE 4 Game Design Educ. Assessment Years 4–10 Time Line Our plan: Design

16. Our plan: Software: – Mini-games architecture (MGA) ‏ – Individual mini-games (IMG) ‏ – In-Game Journaling software (GJS) ‏ – Post-Game analysis software tools to journal data (PGA ) ‏

17. Dissemination and Outreach Organize seminars within existing conferences Invited workshops run at the Institute Public talks/events sponsored by the Institute Bring in high powered speakers Publications in both educational and C.S. journals Our plan:

18. Responsible PI: Ken Perlin Goals ― Analyze 25+ existing games, identify patterns for design principl ― Literature review Our plan: Responsible PI: Ken Perlin Goals: ― Analyze 25+ existing games, identify patterns for design principles ― Literature review Outcomes –List of design principles candidates –List of game candidates for Phase II –Prototype of journaling tools –Dissemination: Literature reviews, Empirical papers Wide-ranging exploration Exploration of Existing Games (Months 1-8) ‏ PHASE 1

19. Our plan: Deliverables and Time Line PHASE I: Wide Ranging Exploration of Existing Games (Months 1-8)‏ Tasks/Methods –Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)‏ –Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)‏ –Observe game play in various settings, develop ‘fun maps,’ data analysis, reports of findings (Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Phelps, Plass, Skelton) –Begin designing journaling tools (Skelton)‏ Outcomes –List of design principles candidates –List of game candidates for Phase II –Prototype of journaling tools –Dissemination: Literature reviews, Empirical papers Tasks/Methods –Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)‏ –Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)‏ –Observe game play in various settings, develop ‘fun maps,’ data analysis, reports of findings (Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Phelps, Plass, Skelton) –Begin designing journaling tools (Skelton)‏ PHASE 1 Wide-ranging exploration Exploration of Existing Games (Months 1-9) ‏

20. Responsible PI: Ken Perlin Goals ― Analyze 25+ existing games, identify patterns for design principles ― Literature review Our plan: Responsible PI: Jan Plass Goals: –Deeper Analysis of 12-15 games (fewer games, more sessions); identify design principles Outcomes –Refined list of design principles candidates –1-2 sample games –Journaling tools –Journal analysis tool prototype –Dissemination: Empirical papers PHASE 2 Focused Exploratory Research (Months 10–18)‏

21. Our plan: Deliverables and Time Line PHASE I: Wide Ranging Exploration of Existing Games (Months 1-8)‏ Tasks/Methods –Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)‏ –Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)‏ –Observe game play in various settings, develop ‘fun maps,’ data analysis, reports of findings (Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Phelps, Plass, Skelton) –Begin designing journaling tools (Skelton)‏ Outcomes –List of design principles candidates –List of game candidates for Phase II –Prototype of journaling tools –Dissemination: Literature reviews, Empirical papers Tasks/Methods –Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)‏ –Review and approve research protocols and measures (Plass, Perlin)‏ –Build 1-2 mini-games incorporating design principles identified in Phase I (Perlin, Phelps)‏ Test and refine journaling tools (Skelton)‏ Design and Develop data analysis tools for journals (Skelton) –Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)‏ In-depth observation of game play in various settings, (Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Plass, Skelton) Think-aloud protocols of targeted game comparisons (Isbister, Milne)‏ Design Experiments (Flanagan, Kinzer)‏ Lab-based evaluation of exploratory games built based on principles (Homer, Plass)‏ PHASE 2 Focused Exploratory Research (Months 10–18)‏

22. Responsible PI: Ken Perlin Goals ― Analyze 25+ existing games, identify patterns for design principles ― Literature review Our plan: Responsible PI: Ken Perlin Goals: –Develop educational games based on design principles identified in Phases I and II –Develop data analysis tools Outcomes –Usability-tested sample games –Data analysis tools for game research –Dissemination: Empirical papers, technical papers, methods papers PHASE 3 Development and Evaluation of G4L (Months 19–27)‏

23. Our plan: Deliverables and Time Line PHASE I: Wide Ranging Exploration of Existing Games (Months 1-8)‏ Tasks/Methods –Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)‏ –Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)‏ –Observe game play in various settings, develop ‘fun maps,’ data analysis, reports of findings (Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Phelps, Plass, Skelton) –Begin designing journaling tools (Skelton)‏ Outcomes –List of design principles candidates –List of game candidates for Phase II –Prototype of journaling tools –Dissemination: Literature reviews, Empirical papers Tasks/Methods –Game Design and Instrumentation Build mini-games based on Perlin architecture, tools and prototype (Feiner, Phelps, Flanagan, Gauthier)‏ Implement journaling software from Plass/Perlin spec (Phelps, Skelton)‏ Implement post-process journal-data analysis tool from Plass/Perlin spec (Phelps, Skelton)‏ –Usability Research, Think-aloud protocols, Analysis of user logs (Phelps, Isbister, Milne)‏ –Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)‏ Design Experiments (continued from Phase II) (Flanagan, Kinzer)‏ Lab-based study of small, exploratory games (continued from Phase II) (Homer, Plass)‏ PHASE 3 Development and Evaluation of G4L (Months 19–27)‏

24. Responsible PI: Ken Perlin Goals ― Analyze 25+ existing games, identify patterns for design principles ― Literature review Our plan: Responsible PI: Jan Plass Goals: –Validation of design principles through evaluation of games –Revisions to games and data analysis tools Outcomes –Validated Design Principles for Educational Games –Series of Validated Educational Games –Data Analysis Toolkit for Educational Game Research –Dissemination: Empirical papers, technical papers, methods papers PHASE 4 Confirmation (Months 28–36)‏

25. Our plan: Deliverables and Time Line PHASE I: Wide Ranging Exploration of Existing Games (Months 1-8)‏ Tasks/Methods –Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)‏ –Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)‏ –Observe game play in various settings, develop ‘fun maps,’ data analysis, reports of findings (Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Phelps, Plass, Skelton) –Begin designing journaling tools (Skelton)‏ Outcomes –List of design principles candidates –List of game candidates for Phase II –Prototype of journaling tools –Dissemination: Literature reviews, Empirical papers Tasks/Methods –Confirmation/Validation of effect of specific design factors identified in the exploratory phases Authentic Settings: Design Experiments (continued from Phase II) (Flanagan, Kinzer) In-situ & lab setting: (Quasi-) Experiments (60-80 participants) (Plass, Homer, Isbister)‏ –Revisions to Games (Perlin & Development Team)‏ –Revisions to Data analysis tools (Skelton & Development Team)‏ PHASE 4 Confirmation (Months 28–36)‏

26. Our plan: What we will actually produce: Software: – Mini-games architecture (MGA) ‏ – Individual mini-games (IMG) ‏ – InGame Journaling software (GJS) ‏ – Post-Game analysis software tools for journal data (PGA) ‏ Dissemination and Outreach: – Organize seminars within existing conferences – Invited workshops run at the Institute – Public talks/events sponsored by the Institute – Publications in both educational and C.S. journals

27. http://g4li.nyu.edu

28. Rich Gold’s classification scheme

32. Learning programming as a game

33. Characters and engagement

34. Science, Playful Interface Research, and Learning

35. iBird

36. UnMousePad