Hypercontextualized Learning Games

Abstract

A Hypercontextualized Game (HCG) is a locally designed game that supports its players in gathering context-specific information and in-depth understanding and knowledge regarding the context of a site. LIEKSAMYST, an exciting mobile application, with which visitors can play various games based on stories, was originally developed for the open-air section of the Pielinen Museum and is an example of such a hypercontextualized game. Each individual game (which together make up LIEKSAMYST) was developed in, for and with the co-operation of the Pielinen Museum. In its design, LIEKSAMYST purposefully attempts to connect users to the local history and thus promote affective engagement. With the co-operation of both a local school (Lieksan Keskuskoulu) and the museum authorities, we set out to discover how LIEKSAMYST guides the informal learning experience of Grade 7 pupils. We gathered information from 101 pupils on-site (through questionnaires) and used this data, as well as the pupils’ academic grades, to elucidate our study by investigating the relationship between engagement and motivation. The data were analyzed using a quantitative method guided by a qualitative interpretational approach and we found a significant correlation between (a) fantasy and (b) affective and cognitive engagement. The study highlighted the importance of evoking and harnessing both affective and cognitive engagement, through the fundamental element of fantasy, in the game narrative.

Keywords

affective engagement cognitive engagement contextual game engagement fantasy game game-based learning hypercontextualized games informal learning experience locally designed game motivation

This article seeks to analyze the relationship between game-generated motivation and the engagement of the player in the real world, as part of the wider phenomena of games designed for learning. The research study upon which this article is based focused on LIEKSAMYST, a Hypercontextualized Game (HCG), which is in fact a digital game rooted in the players’ specific and current reality. HCGs are locally designed games that help players to gain information and understanding about different subjects and places through the use of specific elements of the continuously changing context of the game (Islas Sedano, 2012). HCGs aim first to promote an understanding of reality, and later, with the use of the digital technology, to enhance certain elements of it.

A common rationale, which is often employed to promote the use of digital games in education, is to highlight the need for engagement, but often the type of engagement is not specified. Studies in behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement have been conducted in schools (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel, & Paris, 2003; Lippman & Rivers, 2008), and Fredricks et al. (2003) mentioned that engagement is considered to be an antidote to boredom, disaffection, low school achievement, and high drop-out rates.

Nonetheless, Ravenscroft and McAlister (2006) have emphasized that claims that propose that digital games support learning lack empirical evidence. Such claims may be driven by the vested interests of the game industry. In his book Man, Play and Games, Caillois (1958) highlights the existence of different types of games including competitive games, role-playing, and gambling. We can infer from his work that players’ preferences, as far as games are concerned, are neither static nor unique. A single game does not suit all players equally, nor one player specifically at any given moment.

We emphasize that playing games is not a new human activity, even if digital games are relatively new to our digital societies. We play from the moment we are born (Florescano, 2006). We discover the world that surrounds us through play (Reilly, 1974) and in playing we express our interpretation of life and the world (Huizinga, 1955). Hence, playing is irrefutably a natural activity performed by everyone. If individuals learn through their activities (Engeström, 1987) then it follows that the activity of playing also supports learning.

We have argued elsewhere (Islas Sedano, 2012) that freedom and voluntary participation are powerful factors that support learning experiences in playing games because the player, more often than not, participates willingly in a game and wants to succeed at it. Furthermore, for players who decide to play a type of game in which they have a measure of control (Caillois, 1958), the learning impact can be experienced as more intense than is the case with games of chance.

If a game has to be played as part of a prescribed school assignment, then the pupils (or players) do not access that game voluntarily. Instead the game is viewed as a task that the pupils have to complete within the school milieu. It follows that the engagement that the game could have triggered in players if it had been played outside the sphere of school supervision might be distorted or even completely eliminated. Furthermore, a standardized game that is played as part of a school assignment will not appeal equally to all pupils, neither will it offer the same impact on the learning experience. Kirriemuir and McFarlane (2004) have highlighted priorities that must be met before digital games can play a more significant role in formal education including the clear identification of the teaching-learning potential of the game in accordance with the expectations expressed by schools, teachers, parents, children, resources, and the curriculum. We recommend that the way in which different individuals benefit from diverse games when playing them under typical circumstances (school or home) should be added to their list.

We have noticed that the diversity of players and their distinctive demands in specific circumstances are not always met because most of today’s digital games are designed for global and mass market appeal and thus they inevitably neglect the locally situated and on-site reality of players and their inherent individual diversity. The connection between the players’ reality and the game system is a subtle, but powerful, entity, and it can promote different types of engagement. Therefore, we emphasize the need for digital games to be rooted in the players’ local and individual realities, in other words, games that are constructed in the real world of the players, ahead of the actual play.

From an educational perspective, the design of each HCG focuses on informal learning settings. A major premise in the design is that the player accesses the game freely and voluntarily. Given those conditions, the HCG’s design objectives are to keep the player engaged in the game, an engagement that is rooted in her or his own reality.

When an HCG is played as a school activity, the pupil does not voluntarily enter the game realm. Instead, the game manifests itself as a learning activity that the pupil must perform as, how and when the teacher indicates. Hence, the initial attitude of the player, which is voluntary and free access to the game, is partially or completely lost. In this study, the pupils did not participate voluntarily, that is, playing was an activity dictated by their teachers. However, it is worth exploring possible links between the pupils’ motivation and engagement in the game. What were the pupils’ responses to LIEKSAMYST when they play as part of a school task? This article aims to answer this question and employs the following structure: a short background, methods used in the study, results of the study, and finally an analysis and discussion.

Background

Games and Motivation

Deci and Ryan’s (1985) definition of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation states that intrinsic motivation originates within the individual whereas extrinsic motivation originates in the attaining or avoiding of something outside the self. An example of an extrinsically motivated individual would be someone who studies hard for an exam to gain recognition from their parents whereas an intrinsically motivated individual studies hard for the personal satisfaction of performing well in the exam.

The condition, under which the players engage in a game, is considered the state of flow and it is not an experience exclusive to gaming, but one that can be inherent in any activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008). Researchers assume that the state of flow can be achieved through the intrinsic motivation to play games, based on the factors of challenge, curiosity, and fantasy (Malone, 1980). Other scholars (Alessi & Trollip, 2001; Islas Sedano, Laine, Vinni, & Sutinen, 2007; Malone & Lepper, 1987) add to these the aspect of personal control. We briefly describe these four motivational factors:

Challenge means that a player faces a situation with an uncertain outcome and has to make an effort to overcome it. The situation is not so difficult that the player surrenders, nor so easy that the player overcomes it without any effort. In a way, the situation resembles the zone of proximal development as described in Vygotsky’s theory of learning.

Curiosity is a strong desire to know more about something. It compels the player to explore and investigate and it can be aroused by different means.

Fantasy transports the player to an imaginary world.

Personal control allows the player to feel in charge of a situation, for example, the tempo at which the game is played.

These four motivational factors, according to research mentioned and referenced above, are relevant to players and we set out to determine whether any of them indeed had motivational relevance to players of LIEKSAMYST. We were especially interested in trying to determine what motivates pupils when they play a game as part of a school assignment. We can safely assume that the element of motivation can potentially trigger a certain level of pupil engagement in this activity.

Engagement

The intrinsic motivation to play games can be allocated within the multidimensional and complex concept of engagement (Bedwell, Pavlas, Heyne, Lazzara, & Salas, 2012; Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002; Whitton, 2011; Wideman et al., 2007). However, we should not oversimplify this multifaceted concept for the sake of the analysis of digital games. Scholars researching the subject of engagement in schools (Fredricks et al., 2003; Sharan & Tan, 2008) recognize different types of engagement inherent to students. We define three of these types of engagement, namely, behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement:

Behavioral engagement refers to on-task behaviors that are framed within the parameters of adhering to certain rules, like doing schoolwork. It may also refer to the extent, in which the behavior aligns with the teacher’s expectations (Lan et al., 2009).

Cognitive engagement refers to the psychological effort that is put into self-regulated learning. It includes the desire to go beyond the requirements as well as the effort and strategy used to perform specific tasks (Walker, Greene, & Mansell, 2006).

Affective engagement refers to identification and belonging, to finding a personal connection and identification with other individuals, not only subject matter (Sharan & Tan, 2008). Within affective engagement, we also include emotional engagement, because it refers to the values, attitudes, and emotions as expressed by individuals.

In the case of this study, we are interested in the areas of cognitive and affective engagement.

LIEKSAMYST

In the summer of 2007, we started working on an HCG called LIEKSAMYST (Islas Sedano, Sutinen, Vinni, & Laine, 2012). The game was designed and developed to breathe new life into history and as a celebration of cultural heritage, as exemplified through the historical objects displayed at the Pielinen open-air museum. The Pielinen Museum is the second largest open-air museum in Finland, with 70 buildings and over 100,000 objects on display.

LIEKSAMYST is a pioneer game that merges physical and virtual worlds, but has the non-digital space as the priority. LIEKSAMYST consists of storytelling games (Miller, 2008) that can be defined as HCG stories, in accordance with the players’ physical location. The player neither earns points nor accumulates scores in these games. Instead, the player reads a story and finds objects related to it in a specific location in the museum. Each player plays LIEKSAMYST at their own pace. The digital tool used by the players in LIEKSAMYST is a mobile phone because the majority of individuals know how to use a phone and are comfortable doing so. However, the contextual richness of the game lies in the historical information presented by the buildings themselves and the non-digital items that are to be found in the spaces where the game is being played.

LIEKSAMYST started as a research project and has evolved so that today it is a fully fledged game option offered by the museum. Curators and local pupils keep on developing HCG stories for the game. This study is based on the first two HCG stories created for LIEKSAMYST. Our first story is set in the Virsuvaara farmhouse where Anna lives with her family in 1895. Anna, an educated 40-year-old with an outgoing and talkative personality, is the lady of the house. Our second story is set in the 1930s in the Pusurinjoki camp where Jussi, a forester, lives during winter when the trees are being felled. Jussi is 30 years old, single, and reticent with a penchant for straight talking (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Jussi and Anna are the virtual hosts at the Pielinen Museum; Anna lives in Virsuvaara and Jussi lives at the Pusurinjoki camp.

In the LIEKSAMYST HCG stories, the virtual hosts generally share their daily lives with the player and they even request the player to identify objects that they (the hosts) need to execute their daily activities. These objects are to be found in the physical environment in which the player (and the game) is embedded. Hence, the overall idea of LIEKSAMYST is that the history enclosed in each one of the museum’s buildings is communicated to the player through the medium of the mobile phone. The player experiences the history by interacting with the displayed museum objects that, in turn, encompass the memories of our ancestors.

Each story in LIEKSAMYST has been designed and developed to involve the museum visitors who enter the space freely and voluntarily. Hence, if visitors decide to play the game, LIEKSAMYST aims to increase their enjoyment and learning experience on-site. The digital technology supports the conversation between the past and the present by giving a voice to the silent memories. Visitors to the Pielinen Museum are diverse in their ages and backgrounds and the use of mobile phones in the storytelling game aims to facilitate the inclusion of all because it offers the possibility to sustain conversations in different languages.

Overview of the Present Study

An opportunity to gauge the educational impact of LIEKSAMYST HCG stories on school pupils was presented when a local school applied to visit the museum. The researchers, in agreement with the school and the museum, used this occasion to analyze the educational impact of LIEKSAMYST and to determine whether it provides a positive learning experience for pupils from schools in the area.

To explore the pupils’ responses to LIEKSAMYST and to show how these responses contribute to the positive learning experiences, we designed a scheme that aims to convey the relationship between LIEKSAMYST, the motivational factors that compel the player to finalize the game, and the affective and cognitive engagement of pupils when they play the game (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Schematic representation of the relationship between the two focus areas of our study: motivational factors and engagement.

We assume that visitors, who decide to play LIEKSAMYST voluntarily, are intrinsically motivated. Consequently, as designers, we are interested in learning more about the motivational factors that keep the players playing until they have finalized the game. The motivational factors contribute to the players’ cognitive and affective engagement (Figure 2).

However, we do not know whether the pupils are intrinsically motivated when they are assigned to play LIEKSAMYST as part of a school activity. They are more likely to be extrinsically motivated to play as they do not wish to disobey the teacher’s directive. Nevertheless, as Ryan and Deci (2000) discovered, students who are intrinsically motivated are more likely to persist when experiencing challenges and they also perform better academically than those who are extrinsically motivated. As a result, we cannot expect the same level of commitment to the game from pupils who are extrinsically motivated as we expect from those players who are intrinsically motivated.

Research Design

The study analyzes the relationship between the different variables (motivational factors and engagement) and in so doing it facilitates an understanding of the learning possibilities that LIEKSAMYST offers school pupils. We decided to follow a deductive approach in order to answer our research question (Table 1).

Table 1.

Research Question in Relation to the Literature.

Research question	Research topic	Description	Exploration area (Figure 2)
How do pupils’ responses to LIEKSAMYST contribute to the positive learning experience?	a. Pupils’ engagement in the museum and while playing LIEKSAMYST.	Cognitive and affective engagement is a decisive factor in ensuring the successful completion of learning tasks. Studies of cognitive and affective engagement have been performed in schools (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel, & Paris, 2003). Using Fredricks’s metrics, we explored the engagement in museums and games.	Engagement
	b. What motivated the pupils to complete the game?	The pupils played the game because it was a school task and this might have affected their motivation to play the game until the end.	Motivational Factors

We took as our departure point the premise that not all the pupils were intrinsically motivated to play LIEKSAMYST. Nevertheless, as the game is rooted in the historical reality, we assumed that everyone who plays LIEKSAMYST learns something, even if they are playing the game against their will. However, we wanted to investigate the pupils’ responses to LIEKSAMYST and how these responses contribute to a positive learning experience (as expected by the school).

In an attempt to answer our research question we gathered data from 101 pupils who played LIEKSAMYST. These pupils, all in Grade 7, came from the local school in Lieksa. Each pupil filled in a questionnaire that was specifically designed for this study. Additionally, the school supplied us with the final school grades of the pupils. All the information was quantitatively processed and then analyzed from a qualitative perspective.

Instrument Development

The instrument used in our study was a survey that included questions relating to three areas: learning outcomes, engagement, and motivational factors. The instrument was validated by five individuals before it was given to the pupils on-site. The instrument was developed in English and the final version was translated into Finnish.

Learning outcomes

Section 1 of the instrument contained six questions and focused on facts learned on-site (Table 2). The questions were aimed at measuring what the players had indeed learned about Finnish history, based on the information and guidance provided by LIEKSAMYST in support of their informal learning process. Four of the six questions were multiple-choice. According to Fowler (1995), multiple-choice questions support the easy recall of facts from a cognitive perspective. The two remaining questions asked for short compositions.

Table 2.

Questions That Measure the Learning Outcomes (Section 1 of the Instrument).

Multiple choice questions	Composition questions
Do you know how many people used to live in Virsuvaara farmhouse: 18 persons, 30 persons, or 10 persons?	Can you briefly describe what it was like to be a forest worker in Finland around 1930?
Do you know when a law obliging companies to build proper camps for forest workers was passed in Finland: In 1908, 1928, or 1918?
Do you know the difference between the bread made in West Finland versus the bread made in East Finland? (1) the filling (2) the color (3) the softness.	Can you briefly describe what it was like to be a housewife living on a Finnish farm around 1895?
What did the forest workers eat in 1930? (1) pork gravy, potatoes and bread, (2) bacon, toast and butter or (3) eggs, pork gravy and bread?

Engagement

Section 2 of the instrument focused on the pupils’ engagement with the museum and the objects contained within it and with LIEKSAMYST through questions that assess their cognitive and affective engagement. Most of the questions were based on the survey by Fredricks et al. (2003) who studied school engagement. In our case, the questions refer to LIEKSAMYST and the museum instead of the school (Table 3).

Table 3.

Questions That Aim to Measure the Cognitive and Affective Engagement of the Pupils With the Museum and With LIEKSAMYST (Section 2 of the Instrument).

	School questions by Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel, and Paris (2003)	LIEKSAMYST	Museum
Affective engagement	1. I feel happy when I am in school.2. I feel bored when I am in school (reversed).3. I feel excited by the work we do in school.4. I like being at school.5. I am interested in the work at school.6. My classroom is a fun place to be.	1. I feel happy when playing LIEKSAMYST.2. I feel bored when playing LIEKSAMYST.3. I feel excited by the LIEKSAMYST activities.4. I like playing LIEKSAMYST.5. I am interested in the activities I can do with LIEKSAMYST.6. LIEKSAMYST is a fun game to play.	1. I feel happy when visiting the museum.2. I feel bored when visiting the museum.3. I feel excited by the activities offered at the museum.4. I like visiting the museum.5. I am interested in the activities offered at the museum.6. The museum is a fun place to visit.
Cognitive engagement	1. When I read a book, I ask myself questions to make sure that I understand what it is about.2. I read extra books to learn more about the things we do at school.3. I talk to people outside school about what I am learning in class.	1.When the game introduces me to different objects, I ask myself questions to make sure I understand what it represents or what it is used for.2. I became interested to know more about the historic lifestyle as a result of the LIEKSAMYST characters.3. I talk with other people about what I learned from the LIEKSAMYST game.	1. When I see an object in the museum exposition, I ask myself questions to make sure I understand what it represents or what it is used for.2. What I saw in the museum made me curious to learn more about Finnish history.3. I discuss what I learned at the museum with other people.

Section 2 contained also six statements that were not based on the survey of Fredricks et al. (2003), but instead derived from various sources. These statements were as follows: I feel involved in the museum; I feel involved in the LIEKSAMYST game; I am interested in the lives of the LIEKSAMYST characters; Playing LIEKSAMYST at the museum was fun; I feel inspired while playing LIEKSAMYST; and I want to play more stories from LIEKSAMYST.

Motivational factors

Section 3 focused on those factors that motivate pupils to continue playing LIEKSAMYST until the end of the game. The open-ended statements (Table 4) were based on our previous studies that focused on the motivation of players to finish a game and their perception of it as in the case of SCIMYST (Islas Sedano et al., 2007).

Table 4.

Statements That Aim to Measure the Motivational Factors That Urge Players to Keep on Playing LIEKSAMYST Until the Game Is Finished (Section 3 of the Instrument).

Motive	Statement
Curiosity	I wanted to know what would happen next.
	I was curious to see what I could discover.
Challenge	I wanted to resolve all the questions correctly.
	I wanted to have all the answers correct.
Fantasy	I wanted to feel as if I was helping Anna/Jussi.
	I wanted to feel that I am an important guest of Anna/Jussi.
Personal control	I was able to seek information at my own pace.
	I was able to control the pace of the story.

Practical Arrangements

The school groups reserved different times for their proposed visits to the museum. A total of six Grade 7 groups visited the museum and played LIEKSAMYST. The visits were organized so that two groups of pupils would visit the museum every day. We thus accommodated two groups a day (one from 9:00 to 11:00 and one from 12:00 to 14:00) over a period of 3 days.

A total of 101 pupils from the same school experienced LIEKSAMYST. The ages of the players ranged between 13 and 14 years with only one pupil being 15 years old. Of the participants 53% were boys and 47% were girls. A protocol was designed for each group’s visit (see appendix). At the time of the visits, all pupils had completed their final exams and were awaiting the start of their school holidays.

The groups were varied in terms of their sizes and the day and time of their visits. Table 5 shows the unique characteristics of each group’s visit in detail. After processing four groups, we noticed that we had enough time to gather data before and after the game was played. Therefore, the two remaining groups filled in Section 1 and some of the statements in Section 2 twice. The first time Section 1 was filled in was after the pupils had visited and seen the game locations, but had not yet played. Once the pupils had played in both game locations, they filled in the whole instrument, and thus Section 1 was answered twice.

Table 5.

Summary of the Visits of the School Groups to the Pielinen Museum.

	Highlights
Group	Technical	Behavioral
Group I17 pupilsDay 19 to 11 hours	First day running the game with the museum’s own infrastructure. Although equipment had been tested the previous week, problems occurred. A temporary solution was running the game from a researcher’s computer.	The pupils started playing at 9:35. They were already impatient. The teacher was unhappy with the situation.The game did not run smoothly. Some children could play the whole of Anna’s story.Pupils filled in the instrument after only playing at Virsuvaara.
Group II20 pupilsDay 112 to 14 hours	Technical problems were solved and the game worked smoothly; however, still using the researcher’s computer.	The curator divided the group (gender mixed) and half of them started playing at Virsuvaara while the others started at Pusurinjoki. Once a player had concluded the game in one location, it was possible to switch to the other house.Pupils filled in the instrument after playing in both locations.
Group III15 pupilsDay 29 to 11 hours	The game was played with the museum’s server, and it worked smoothly.	The curators divided the group into two sets. The girls started at Virsuvaara and the boys at Pusurinjoki. Once a player had concluded the game in one location, it was possible to switch to the other house.Pupils filled in the instrument after playing in both locations.
Group IV16 pupilsDay 212 to 14 hours	The game was played with the museum’s server and it worked smoothly.	The curator divided the group (gender mixed) and half of them commenced playing at Virsuvaara and the others at Pusurinjoki. Once a player had concluded the game in one location, it was possible to switch to the other house.Pupils filled in the instrument after playing in both locations.
Group V17 pupilsDay 39 to 11 hours	The game was played with the museum’s server and it worked smoothly.	Before playing the game, the pupils visited Pusurinjoki and Virsuvaara. The curator suggested that the children first look around. Once they had visited both locations, we gave them the pre-play survey.Once all the questionnaires had been returned to the curator, we explained the game following the protocol.Pre-Play Instrument’s Section 1 and the statements of Section 2 that refer to the museum were answered.Post-Play Pupils filled in all the instrument’s questions after having played in both locations.
Group VI16 pupilsDay 312 to 14 hours	The game was played with the museum’s server and it worked smoothly.	Some pupils were constantly talking loudly and interrupting.Before playing, the pupils visited Pusurinjoki and Virsuvaara. The curator suggested that the children look around. Once they had visited both locations, we gave them the pre-play survey that consisted of the instrument’s Section 1 and the statements of Section 2 that refer to the museum.Once all the questionnaires had been returned to the curator, we explained the game following the protocol.Playing A few minutes into play, some pupils started misbehaving and even attempted to touch museum objects. The curator had clearly informed the pupils of the museum rules and that they were not allowed to touch the exhibits.Some phones also crashed during this session, which was only a temporary problem. After rebooting the phone, the players could continue their game in the same place where they had stopped.Pre-Play Instrument’s Section 1 and the statements of Section 2 that refer to the museum were answered.Post-Play Pupils filled in all the instrument’s questions after playing in both locations.

Once the pupils started to play LIEKSAMYST, we let them engage in the activity without further instructions. Each location—Virsuvaara (Figure 3) and Pusurinjoki—had at least one curator present in case the pupils experienced difficulty navigating the game. The researchers moved between the two locations and supported the pupils, answering queries regarding technical or content issues. The researchers also asked the pupils whether they needed help, but supportive actions were infrequently requested.

Figure 3.

LIEKSAMYST Anna’s story: (1, 2, 3) The building where Anna’s story is located. (4) Examples of gameplay with the pupils of this study.

At the end of the school visits, the teachers informed us that two of the groups had specific characteristics: One group included special needs pupils and the other group included individuals who intend to be entrepreneurs and therefore they were supposedly self-motivated and focused. Hence, for analysis sake, we highlight the following observations:

Group I experienced technical problems and most pupils played only at Virsuvaara.

Group II was made up of pupils who wanted to be entrepreneurs once they finish school.

Group V contained special education or special needs pupils.

Group VI contained some pupils who misbehaved during their visit to the museum and this made the group difficult to control. Some pupils did not listen to the curators and challenged their instructions.

Data Preparation

All the data for the analyses were translated into English and captured in Excel.

Section 1 of our instrument, which focused on the learning outcomes, was evaluated as an exam. We assigned 1 point to each correct answer and therefore the maximum score for the LIEKSAMYST exam was 6. If the answer was wrong or unsolved, it did not score a point.

We paid special attention to open-ended questions that requested the pupils to write a short composition. Three patterns emerged from the answers and they were categorized as neutral, general, and specific:

Neutral: In this category, we allocated the statements that were correct, but neutral. For example, work a lot and it was hard, busy cooking.

General: The statements allocated in this category offer descriptions supported by LIEKSAMYST. For example, make food, [weave] carpets, store food.

Specific: In this category, we assigned all the answers that contained details about the location supported by LIEKSAMYST. For example, The work was hard, the wages were paid per every tree they cut, and in the afternoon they just relaxed or woke up at 6 making breakfast then churning butter and weaving. Cooking. Playing kantele in the evening to sleep at 10 pm.

The compositions that only used emotive words such as nice or boring (in the LIEKSAMYST exam) were viewed as non-responses because they did not show that any facts had been learned. However, we took these responses into account when we specifically analyzed the type of cognitive or affective engagement in the players’ compositions.

In addition to Section 1 of the instrument that provides the LIEKSAMYST exam grade, the school also provided the pupils’ grades for the year for use in this study.

Table 6 provides an outline of the scales that were used for the statistical analysis of Section 2 (engagement) and Section 3 (motivation).

Table 6.

Scales for Statistical Analysis.

Motivation	Engagement
1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = disagree 4 = strongly disagree	1 = never 2 = on occasion 3 = some of the time 4 = most of the time 5 = all of the time

As the measurement scales of motivation were in reverse compared with those of engagement, reversed scoring was applied to all motivational items to improve the interpretability of the results.

The calculations of data were done with IBM SPSS version 20 (SPSS, 2012) and the structural equation modeling (SEM) was done using AMOS (SPSS, 2006).

Results

Factor Analysis on Engagement

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was used to measure sample adequacy and ranges between 0 and 1 with a value of 0.50 are a suggested minimum. The Barlett’s test of sphericity tests the hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix, which would indicate that the variables are unrelated and unsuitable for structure detention. Small values less than 0.05 indicate that the factor analysis may be useful for reducing the data.

The results of this study support the arguments offered by Sharan and Tan (2008) and Walker et al. (2006) that pertain to the relevance of promoting affective and cognitive engagement. Table 7 provides the pattern matrix of the exploratory principal components factor analysis with oblimin rotation of affective and cognitive engagement.

Table 7.

Pattern Matrix of Factor Analysis of Cognitive and Affective Engagement.

Engagement	Items in questionnaire	Factor 1	Factor 2
Affective	I like playing LIEKSAMYST.	0.914
	I feel happy when playing LIEKSAMYST.	0.911
	Playing LIEKSAMYST at the museum was fun.	0.867
	I am interested in the activities I can do with LIEKSAMYST.	0.843
	LIEKSAMYST is a fun game to play.	0.808
	I like visiting the museum.	0.770
	I am interested in the activities offered at the museum.	0.757
	I want to play more stories from LIEKSAMYST.	0.741
	The museum is a fun place to visit.	0.732
	I feel inspired while playing LIEKSAMYST.	0.739
	I feel happy when visiting the museum.	0.724
	I feel excited by the LIEKSAMYST activities.	0.708
	I feel excited by the activities offered at the museum.	0.635	0.309
	I feel bored when visiting the museum.^a	−0.635
	I feel bored when playing LIEKSAMYST.^a	−0.607
	I feel involved in the LIEKSAMYST game.	0.489	0.319
	I feel involved in the museum.	0.440	0.300
Cognitive	I discuss what I learned at the museum with other people.		0.941
	I became interested to know more about the historic lifestyle as a result of the LIEKSAMYST characters.		0.887
	What I saw in the museum made me curious to learn more about Finnish history.		0.852
	I talk with other people about what I learned from the LIEKSAMYST game.		0.746
	When the game introduces me to different objects, I ask myself questions to make sure I understand what it represents or what it is used for.		0.661
	When I see an object in the museum exposition, I ask myself questions to make sure I understand what it represents or what it is used for.		0.635
	I am interested in the lives of the LIEKSAMYST characters.	0.432	0.482

Note. Factor loadings below 0.3 are suppressed in the table. The gray shading indicates the higher factor loading for each statement, and further, how the statements are clustered in factors.

Items with reversed phrasing.

During the factor analysis, the variables were clustered into two homogeneous groups, which enabled us to gain insight into categories (Garrett-Mayer, 2006). These factors correspond to affective and cognitive engagement. The majority of the items show a factor loading of higher than 0.6. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of 0.86 indicates adequate data for factor analysis. The Barlett’s test of sphericity showed a significance of <.001 for this factor analysis. The reliability for the affective and cognitive factors, as given by Cronbach’s alpha, was .90 and .92, respectively.

Factor Analysis on Motivation

Four motivational factors were initially identified: curiosity, challenge, fantasy, and personal control. An exploratory principal components factor analysis with oblimin rotation identified only two distinct factors. Curiosity, challenge, and personal control items could be grouped as one factor (which we named experience) and fantasy remained apart as the other factor (Table 8). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of 0.80 indicates adequate data for factor analysis. The Barlett’s test of sphericity test showed a significance of <.001 for this factor analysis.

Table 8.

Pattern Matrix of Factor Analysis of Motivation.

Motivation	Items in questionnaire	Factor 1	Factor 2
Experience	I wanted to resolve all the questions correctly.	0.790
	I wanted to have all the answers correct.	0.655
	I was able to control the pace of the story.	0.717
	I was able to seek information at my own pace.	0.712
	I was curious to see what I can discover.	0.624
	I wanted to know what will happen next.	0.612
Fantasy	I wanted to feel that I was helping Anna/Jussi.		0.916
	I wanted to feel that I am an important guest of Anna/Jussi.		0.854

Note. Factor loadings below 0.3 are suppressed in the table. The gray shading indicates the higher factor loading for each statement, and further, how the statements are clustered in factors.

The reliability for the experience and fantasy factors, as given by Cronbach’s alpha, was .81 and .82, respectively.

SEM Modeling: Motivation and Engagement

The relationship between motivation and engagement as hypothesized in Figure 2 was tested by means of SEM with Amos. SEM builds on concepts of regression analysis reporting standardized regression weights. When p < .05, it means that the relationships are statistically significant. SEM improves on regression models by integrating the factor analysis (measurement model) as well as the regression model (structural model) in one model.

Figure 4 provides the results of above-mentioned SEM model, without showing the measurement model as indicated by the exploratory factor analyses.

Figure 4.

Structural equation model of motivation on engagement with standardized regression weights.

Fantasy shows statistically significant standardized regression weights with both cognitive (β = .821) and affective engagement (β = .677). Furthermore, we found no statistically significant standardized regression weight between experience and affective engagement (β = .216) nor with cognitive engagement (β = .088). This indicates that only fantasy had a significant relationship with affective and cognitive engagement.

The suggested goodness of fit measures for the model are as follows:

Chi-square test statistic divided by its degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF) value of 2.22, which should be smaller than 5 to indicate a good fit (Mueller, 1996);

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) value of 0.74, where values larger than 0.9 are indicative of a good overall fit (Mueller, 1996); and

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) value of 0.11 with a 90% confidence interval of [0.10, 0.12], which should be smaller than 0.1 for acceptable fit (Blunch, 2008).

Although only the CMIN/DF suggested a good fit, the model in Figure 4 illustrates that the experience motivation factor seems to have no significant relationship with either of the engagement factors.

Discussion and Conclusion

The research question that governs our study is How do pupils’ responses to LIEKSAMYST contribute to the positive learning experience? The simplified and summarized answer is that by stimulating the players’ fantasy they become affectively and cognitively engaged. We elaborate further in this section in order to understand the implications of this answer.

The research question is based upon the assumption that LIEKSAMYST offers its players an opportunity to support their learning processes, because the game mechanics are rooted in historical facts that encourage the players to discover the historical location where the game is being played. The digital multimedia utilized in LIEKSAMYST are uncomplicated, as shown in Figure 1, utilizing mainly text, photographs, graphics, and sounds.

The LIEKSAMYST exam results and the pupils’ school grades do not correlate, which might be an expected result. We compared two sets of results: that of the pupils playing LIEKSAMYST (a 1-day intervention) with that of a whole year’s school performance (a yearlong learning journey with all its inherent variables). School performance, motivation, and engagement were thus measured over different time frames (1-day intervention vs. an academic year) and consequently, it should not be surprising that the two sets of results do not correlate.

However, the fact that the LIEKSAMYST exam does not correlate with the variables of motivation and engagement invites further thought as concerns the benefit or the role of games for learning (or serious games). When one designs and conceptualizes a game for learning, one is aware of the cross-pollination of several different knowledge domains and disciplines (Alessi & Trollip, 2001). Hence, a game designed for learning that focuses on one subject primarily can also secondarily support the attainment of other types of knowledge. In the case of LIEKSAMYST, the pupils have to understand what they are reading and they have to do some research on-site. Pupils also need to make deductions in order to help them find the correct objects to continue playing the game. Games designed for learning involve more than one academic subject or knowledge domain in their design.

The effect of a learning game on a single topic can be increased via appropriate debriefing sessions (Crookall, 2010) after playing the game. In this study, proper debriefing was not performed due to time constraints, but pupils were allowed to have informal group discussions during the play.

The main finding of this study is that fantasy is the central factor that triggers affective and cognitive engagement while playing LIEKSAMYST. The game and the environment in which it is played stimulate the players’ fantasy, which in turn encourages their engagement with the content and the activity of playing LIEKSAMYST. Learning takes place the very moment that pupils are engaged. The HCG LIEKSAMYST provides the pupils with an opportunity to become engaged with real life facts and relevant information in an informal setting.

The previous finding invites critical consideration of games for learning and the learning environment in which they are played. According to the findings of this study, we can assume that when we stimulate players’ fantasy they become immersed in the learning environment, which includes the game content. Consequently, teachers and curators can take advantage of this possibility to encourage and support learning. However, what happens when the game is not knitted into a learning environment or when the game mechanics are not linked with the learning environment and the learning game is an isolated closed system? Can we continue to assume that individuals learn?

This study invites us to further investigate serious games from four unique perspectives:

The dimension of fantasy in games. As we mentioned was the case with LIEKSAMYST, the multimedia are uncomplicated allowing the players’ fantasy to easily emerge, but would this still be the case if the game’s multimedia were more complicated and pervasive? When games utilize 3D animation, holograms, or Augmented Reality, are we allowing players to utilize their fantasy or is the players’ use of fantasy dwindling as the game designers’ fantasy takes over? Furthermore, how is fantasy linked to the game mechanics of the game? Does the game encourage meaningful game activities? As Habgood, Ainsworth, and Benford (2005a) so aptly question: How is the element of fantasy knitted into the game mechanics to promote meaningful play?

Game and the learning environment. How should we interpret claims made by games that are not linked to learning environments? If games stimulate engagement through the motivator of fantasy and learning is not conveyed solely through the game content, but also through the learning environment, then how can we analyze the learning claims of those games that are not linked, at any level, to a learning environment?

Diversity of learning environments and motivators. Given that different learning environments and different types of games exist, could we suppose that different motivators trigger engagement toward learning in accordance with the game and the environment? This question can only be answered upon further exploration of relatively homogeneous type of games (e.g., LIEKSAMYST re-contextualized for other types of open-air museums) or, in other words, further studies sounding out different HCG games harnessed in different environments. Once this has been done, different correlations of motivation and engagement, according to the context, can be analyzed. Diversity offers different types of meaningful play as the HCG game SCIMYST (which was designed for the Science Festival in Joensuu) indicates. In this game, the players were motivated by curiosity to play the game to the end (Islas Sedano et al., 2007). However, the environment and the aim of the game were completely different from those of LIEKSAMYST. Would this affect the type of motivator that triggers affective and cognitive engagement?

Further qualitative studies. In the particular case of LIEKSAMYST, we should further analyze, from a qualitative perspective, what opportunities the game offers to pupils who have failed history. In this study, pupils who had failed history informally and spontaneously reported in the instrument that Finnish history is well learned in this way.

Although the pupils who played LIEKSAMYST did not participate voluntarily, they became affectively and cognitively engaged in the game. This is an indication that the element of fantasy is a powerful force in facilitating learning (Frankl, 2005) and should be wisely utilized. In the particular case of LIEKSAMYST, the players were evidently engaged by their fantasy, both affectively and cognitively, immersing themselves in the learning environment and its content. The players’ engagement with solving challenges that are merged with emotions and historical facts in the game narratives directly benefit them in their learning processes. We can claim that LIEKSAMYST bridges the informal and formal aspects of learning.

When the element of fantasy helps the pupils to make meaningful choices beyond what is deemed within their capacity, engagement might happen (Habgood, Ainsworth, & Benford, 2005b; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). When we fantasize, we exercise our imagination and that empowers us to become creative and critical, elements that are fundamental to the process of learning (Paintner, 2007). The structural equation model in Figure 4 validates fantasy as a motivational factor that can potentially trigger both affective and cognitive engagement in pupils. Frankl (2005) supports this finding and states that if a man advances confidently in the direction of his dreams to live the life he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.

In general, the results indicate that we should build learning environments that allow pupils to explore and use their imagination freely. This premise, which pre-supposes the accommodation of diverse pupil expectations, would have implications on curriculum design. Neither the current curriculum design nor learning environments are conducive to pupils exploring. The learning environment should become the comfort zone where pupils are able to imagine or visualize and where deep rooted understanding can take place.

Extensive research still has to be done if one wants to fully understand the learning opportunities that LIEKSAMYST offers schools and visitors. The analysis should include the role of different genders, the classroom dynamics, and longitudinal studies among others. Nevertheless, we have empirically illustrated that LIEKSAMYST offers pupils an engaging learning experience.

Footnotes

Appendix

Protocol designed for the school visit at Pielinen Museum, May 31st to June 3rd, 2010.

8:40 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.—Preparation of material for the visit.

Nine N95 phones and eight N80 phones must be ready to play LIEKSAMYST. Questionnaires, pencils for each one of the students.

9:00 a.m. to 9:15 a.m.—Arrival of the students

9:15 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.—Welcome (The Motivation is given here)

Depending on the weather, this can be done in the outdoor museum (central part in front of the Virsuvaara house) or at the indoor museum.

The game consists of stories from different houses, and it is the result of a common development between the museum and the university.

After playing, the pupils must complete the questionnaire carefully. The information will be used for research purposes and therefore they can be as honest as possible.

It was not really explained how to use the phone. However, it was stressed which game to play (house name and story name).

Everybody plays the game and then completes the questionnaire.

The game asks the player to help a character who lived in the past by following a conversation and finding objects. Printed instructions guide the players in the use of the phone. Questions are welcome.

According to the number of pupils per group, we will organize the pupils either in teams or not. The phones will be given accordingly, either to individuals or teams.

9:30 to 10:25 Playtime

Allow them to play.

If they need to change location, guide them in doing so.

At Pusurinjoki, Curator 2 offers support.

At Virsuvaara, Curator 3 offers support.

Researchers 1 and 2 move between the two locations.

At 10:20 announce that they have 5 minutes left and that they need to return the phones.

10:25 to 10:30 Collect phones and hand out questionnaires

Collect the phones and give each pupil a questionnaire and pencil.

Request them to fill in the questionnaire on their own.

10:30 to 10:45 Filling in of questionnaires

10:45 to 11:00 Departure

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to the personnel of the Pielinen Museum in Lieksa. We especially want to express our appreciation to Liisa Eskelinen, Marketta Haavila, and Sanna Harjunen who have supported us unconditionally. In addition, we would like to express our gratitude to the headmaster of Lieksan Keskuskoulu, Juhani Kärki, for authorizing us to perform this study, and Prof. Juha Alho for providing us with valuable advice prior to this research. We also would like to thank the external reviewers and editors of this article who, with their professional knowledge, have supported us in improving the quality of our work.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Carolina Islas Sedano holds a PhD after defending her dissertation titled “Hypercontextualized Games.” She enjoys to discover, to learn, and to play. Consequently, her research interests focus on the playfulness of knowledge, in particular on games in context. Additionally, she is an entrepreneur linking her research interests by conceptualizing games to promote informal learning experiences.

Contact: carolina.islas@uef.fi.

Verona Leendertz is currently a PhD student at the Faculty of Education Sciences at the Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University, South Africa. Her research focuses on the professional development of mathematics teachers in the pedagogical use of ICT in ODL.

Contact: 13173391@nwu.ac.za.

Mikko Vinni is an entrepreneur and an occasional game player. He has contributed to designing and implementing several informal mobile games for museums and events in Finland. He received an MSc degree in computer science from the University of Eastern Finland in 2012.

Contact: mikko.vinni@ubium.net.

Erkki Sutinen is the professor leader of the Educational Technology Research group. His research interests are in the uses of information and communication technologies for development (ICT4D), computer science and ICT education, creative problem solving, contextual design, and text tools for learning. He has been designing innovative educational approaches in developing countries and for special education.

Contact: erkki.sutinen@uef.fi.

Suria Ellis has an MSc and a PhD in statistics. She works at the Faculty of Natural Sciences as a senior statistical consultant and is the head of statistical consultation services at the Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University, South Africa. Her profile includes numerous international and national publications as well as several conference papers.

Contact: suria.ellis@nwu.ac.za.

References

Alessi

S. M.

Trollip

S. R.

(2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bedwell

W. L.

Pavlas

Heyne

Lazzara

E. H.

Salas

(2012). Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to learning an empirical study. Simulation & Gaming, 43, 729-760.

Blunch

(2008). Introduction to structural equation modelling using SPSS and Amos. London, England: SAGE.

Caillois

(1958). Man, play and games (Reprint ed., Barash

Trans.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Crookall

(2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simulation & Gaming, 41, 898-920.

Csikszentmihalyi

(2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (1st ed.). New York, NY: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Engeström

(1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.

Florescano

(2006). El juguete mexicano [The Mexican toy]. Michoacan, Mexico: Taurus.

10.

Fowler

D. F. J.

(1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

11.

Frankl

V. E.

(2005). Logotherapy, and moral imagination: “Will to meaning” in the classroom. Teaching Ethics: The Journal of the Society for Ethics Across the Curriculum, 5, 73-84.

12.

Fredricks

Blumenfeld

Friedel

Paris

(2003, March 11-13). School engagement. Presented at the Indicators of Positive Development Conference, Child Trends, Washington, DC.

13.

Garrett-Mayer

(2006, June 19). Statistics in psychosocial research lecture 8 factor analysis I. Retrieved from http://ocw.jhsph.edu/courses/statisticspsychosocialresearch/pdfs/lecture8.pdf

14.

Garris

Ahlers

Driskell

J. E.

(2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33, 441-467.

15.

Habgood

M. P. J.

Ainsworth

S. E.

Benford

(2005a). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simulation & Gaming, 36, 483-498.

16.

Habgood

M. P. J.

Ainsworth

S. E.

Benford

(2005b, July). Intrinsic fantasy: Motivation and affect in educational games made by children. Presented at the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/gr20/aied05/programme.htm

17.

Huizinga

(1955). Homo Ludens. A study of play-element in culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

18.

Islas Sedano

(2012). Hypercontextualized games (Doctoral dissertation). University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu. Retrieved from http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_isbn_978-952-61-0865-0/urn_isbn_978-952-61-0865-0.pdf

19.

Islas Sedano

Laine

T. H.

Vinni

Sutinen

(2007). Where is the answer?: The importance of curiosity in pervasive mobile games. In Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Future Play (pp. 46-53.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Association for Computing Machinery.

20.

Islas Sedano

Sutinen

Vinni

Laine

(2012). Designing hypercontextualized games: A case study with LIEKSAMYST. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 257-270.

21.

Kirriemuir

McFarlane

(2004). Literature review in games and learning (No. 8). Bristol, UK: Nesta Futurelab. Retrieved from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/literature-reviews/

22.

Lan

Ponitz

C. C.

Miller

K. F.

Cortina

Perry

Fang

(2009). Keeping their attention: Classroom practices associated with behavioral engagement in first grade mathematics classes in China and the United States. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 198-211.

23.

Lippman

Rivers

(2008). Assessing school engagement: A guide for out-of-school time program practitioners. Child Trends Research Brief, 39, 1-5.

24.

Malone

T. W.

(1980). What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer games (Doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, CA.

25.

Malone

T. W.

Lepper

M. R.

(1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomic model of intrinsic motivations for learning. In Snow

R. E.

Farr

(Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: III. Conative and affective process analysis (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

26.

Miller

C. H.

(2008). Digital storytelling, A creator’s guide to interactive entertainment (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Focal Press.

27.

Mueller

R. O.

(1996). Basic principles of structural equation modeling: An introduction to LISREL and EQS. New York, NY: Springer.

28.

Paintner

C. V.

(2007). The relationship between spirituality and artistic expression: Cultivating the capacity for imagining. Spirituality in Higher Education, 3(2), 1-6. Retrieved from http://spirituality.ucla.edu/docs/newsletters/3/Paintner_Jan07.pdf

29.

Ravenscroft

McAlister

(2006). Digital games and learning in cyberspace: A dialogical approach. E-Learning and Digital Media, 3(1), 37-50.

30.

Reilly

(1974). Play as exploratory learning ( SageMark

ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

31.

Ryan

Deci

(2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.

32.

Salen

Zimmerman

(2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

33.

Sharan

Tan

I. G.-C.

(2008). Organizing schools for productive learning. New York, NY: Springer Science.

34.

SPSS. (2006). Introduction to Amos: Training course handbook. Chicago, IL: IBM Corporation.

35.

SPSS. (2012). SPSS® 20.0 for Windows, release 20.0.0. Amarok, NY: IBM Corporation.

36.

Walker

C. O.

Greene

B. A.

Mansell

R. A.

(2006). Identification with academics, Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(1), 1-12.

37.

Whitton

(2011). Game engagement theory and adult learning. Simulation & Gaming, 42, 596-609.

38.

Wideman

Owston

Brown

Kushniruk

Pitts

K. C.

(2007). Unpacking the potential of educational gaming: A new tool for gaming research. Simulation & Gaming, 38, 10-30.