比较游戏教育的创意技巧:SCAMPER, Gamicards, Brainstorming

Mikhail Fiadotau, Martin Sillaots
{"title":"比较游戏教育的创意技巧:SCAMPER, Gamicards, Brainstorming","authors":"Mikhail Fiadotau, Martin Sillaots","doi":"10.1145/3409456.3409460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We conducted a comparative study of two structured (SCAMPER, Playgen AddingPlay card kit) and one unstructured (free brainstorming) ideation techniques, aiming to establish their suitability for game design education. We collected data about the techniques’ productivity, ease of use, and enjoyability from 100 participants in 60-minute game ideation workshops. Contrary to expectations, the data revealed no statistically significant differences between the techniques. The unexpected results led us to reconsider some of our starting assumptions, pointing to the complex nature of counting and evaluating ideas. Based on this, the discussion outlines some suggestions for future research into ideation in games education.","PeriodicalId":170704,"journal":{"name":"International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons and Game Creation Events 2020","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Ideation Techniques for Games Education: SCAMPER, Gamicards, Brainstorming\",\"authors\":\"Mikhail Fiadotau, Martin Sillaots\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3409456.3409460\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We conducted a comparative study of two structured (SCAMPER, Playgen AddingPlay card kit) and one unstructured (free brainstorming) ideation techniques, aiming to establish their suitability for game design education. We collected data about the techniques’ productivity, ease of use, and enjoyability from 100 participants in 60-minute game ideation workshops. Contrary to expectations, the data revealed no statistically significant differences between the techniques. The unexpected results led us to reconsider some of our starting assumptions, pointing to the complex nature of counting and evaluating ideas. Based on this, the discussion outlines some suggestions for future research into ideation in games education.\",\"PeriodicalId\":170704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons and Game Creation Events 2020\",\"volume\":\"58 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons and Game Creation Events 2020\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3409456.3409460\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons and Game Creation Events 2020","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3409456.3409460","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

我们对两种结构化(SCAMPER, Playgen AddingPlay纸牌套件)和一种非结构化(自由头脑风暴)创意技术进行了比较研究,目的是确定它们对游戏设计教育的适用性。我们在60分钟的游戏创意研讨会上收集了100名参与者关于这些技术的生产力、易用性和乐趣的数据。与预期相反,数据显示两种技术之间没有统计学上的显著差异。这些意想不到的结果让我们重新考虑了一些最初的假设,指出了计算和评估想法的复杂性。在此基础上,本文提出了对未来游戏教育中思维研究的一些建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparing Ideation Techniques for Games Education: SCAMPER, Gamicards, Brainstorming
We conducted a comparative study of two structured (SCAMPER, Playgen AddingPlay card kit) and one unstructured (free brainstorming) ideation techniques, aiming to establish their suitability for game design education. We collected data about the techniques’ productivity, ease of use, and enjoyability from 100 participants in 60-minute game ideation workshops. Contrary to expectations, the data revealed no statistically significant differences between the techniques. The unexpected results led us to reconsider some of our starting assumptions, pointing to the complex nature of counting and evaluating ideas. Based on this, the discussion outlines some suggestions for future research into ideation in games education.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Jamming across borders: An exploratory study (co)Curating game jams for community and communitas A 48hr game making challenge retrospective Comparing Ideation Techniques for Games Education: SCAMPER, Gamicards, Brainstorming Hackathons for Workforce Development: A Case Study Participants’ Motivations in the Global Service Jam
×
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