Improving Environmental Outcomes With Games: An Exploration of Behavioural and Technological Design and Evaluation Approaches

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH SIMULATION & GAMING Pub Date : 2022-07-12 DOI:10.1177/10468781221114160
Kristy de Salas, Louise Ashbarry, Mikaela Seabourne, Ian J. Lewis, Lindsay Wells, Julian R. Dermoudy, E. Roehrer, Matthew Springer, J. Sauer, Jenn Scott
{"title":"Improving Environmental Outcomes With Games: An Exploration of Behavioural and Technological Design and Evaluation Approaches","authors":"Kristy de Salas, Louise Ashbarry, Mikaela Seabourne, Ian J. Lewis, Lindsay Wells, Julian R. Dermoudy, E. Roehrer, Matthew Springer, J. Sauer, Jenn Scott","doi":"10.1177/10468781221114160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background To overcome the high failure rate of gameful interventions, we need to better understand their design and evaluation strategies to build an evidence-base for best-practice approaches that bring about meaningful change. This systematic review asks: ‘What behavioural and technological design and evaluation theories and approaches are applied in games developed to bring about positive environmental outcomes?’. Method We reviewed 52 papers published between 2015 and 2020 that used gameful interventions to improve behaviour related to environmental outcomes. These papers were analysed to review the behavioural and technical design, and the assessment and evaluation approaches, employed by the intervention designers. Results We found that these publications report on simple aspects of the behavioural and technical design behind the intervention but fail to justify their design choices in terms of theory and evidence. Furthermore, variability across their evaluation approaches and outcomes exists. Discussion This review highlights several systemic flaws in the literature that limit our understanding of gameful interventions in the pro-environmental context. First, based on this review, we cannot be convinced that these interventions were designed according to best practice for intervention design or for technology development. Second, the justification for proposing a gameful intervention is not always clear. Finally, it is unclear whether these interventions are being evaluated based on best practice. Thus, it is not clear that we can draw confident conclusions about evidence-based outcomes of short-term engagement (in structural gamification interventions) or long-term behaviour change (in content gamification and serious game interventions).","PeriodicalId":47521,"journal":{"name":"SIMULATION & GAMING","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SIMULATION & GAMING","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781221114160","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background To overcome the high failure rate of gameful interventions, we need to better understand their design and evaluation strategies to build an evidence-base for best-practice approaches that bring about meaningful change. This systematic review asks: ‘What behavioural and technological design and evaluation theories and approaches are applied in games developed to bring about positive environmental outcomes?’. Method We reviewed 52 papers published between 2015 and 2020 that used gameful interventions to improve behaviour related to environmental outcomes. These papers were analysed to review the behavioural and technical design, and the assessment and evaluation approaches, employed by the intervention designers. Results We found that these publications report on simple aspects of the behavioural and technical design behind the intervention but fail to justify their design choices in terms of theory and evidence. Furthermore, variability across their evaluation approaches and outcomes exists. Discussion This review highlights several systemic flaws in the literature that limit our understanding of gameful interventions in the pro-environmental context. First, based on this review, we cannot be convinced that these interventions were designed according to best practice for intervention design or for technology development. Second, the justification for proposing a gameful intervention is not always clear. Finally, it is unclear whether these interventions are being evaluated based on best practice. Thus, it is not clear that we can draw confident conclusions about evidence-based outcomes of short-term engagement (in structural gamification interventions) or long-term behaviour change (in content gamification and serious game interventions).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用游戏改善环境结果:行为和技术设计与评估方法的探索
为了克服游戏干预的高失败率,我们需要更好地了解它们的设计和评估策略,为带来有意义变革的最佳实践方法建立一个证据基础。这篇系统性评论提出了这样的问题:“在游戏开发中,什么样的行为和技术设计、评估理论和方法能够带来积极的环境结果?”我们回顾了2015年至2020年间发表的52篇论文,这些论文使用游戏干预来改善与环境结果相关的行为。对这些论文进行分析,以回顾干预设计者所采用的行为和技术设计,以及评估和评价方法。结果我们发现,这些出版物报告了干预背后的行为和技术设计的简单方面,但未能在理论和证据方面证明他们的设计选择。此外,他们的评估方法和结果存在可变性。本综述强调了文献中的几个系统性缺陷,这些缺陷限制了我们对亲环境背景下的博弈干预的理解。首先,基于这一综述,我们不能确信这些干预措施是根据干预设计或技术开发的最佳实践设计的。其次,提出有意干预的理由并不总是很明确。最后,目前尚不清楚这些干预措施是否基于最佳实践进行评估。因此,我们不清楚是否能够得出基于证据的短期参与(结构性游戏化干预)或长期行为改变(内容游戏化和严肃游戏干预)结果的自信结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
SIMULATION & GAMING
SIMULATION & GAMING EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
5.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal of Theory, Practice and Research contains articles examining academic and applied issues in the expanding fields of simulation, computerized simulation, gaming, modeling, play, role-play, debriefing, game design, experiential learning, and related methodologies. The broad scope and interdisciplinary nature of Simulation & Gaming are demonstrated by the wide variety of interests and disciplines of its readers, contributors, and editorial board members. Areas include: sociology, decision making, psychology, language training, cognition, learning theory, management, educational technologies, negotiation, peace and conflict studies, economics, international studies, research methodology.
期刊最新文献
Toxicity or Prosociality?: Civic Value and Gaming Citizenship in Competitive Video Game Communities The Importance of Relaxation and Vacation for Healthcare Workers: Playtime! On the Pre-Perception of Gamification and Game-Based Learning in Higher Education Students: A Systematic Mapping Study Change the Rules! Using Social Media Data to Understand Citizen Perceptions of Urban Planning in a City Simulation Game
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1