skip to main content
research-article

Jam Today, Jam Tomorrow: Learning in Online Game Jams

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 December 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Game jams, which are game creation events in which developers design and build a game over a short period of time, have been shown to support participatory, active STEM learning. Game jams have expanded from their origins as physically co-located experiences and many are now conducted exclusively online. Though the co-located game jam has been noted as educational, little is known about how learning happens within online game jams. To better understand the ways online game jams support self-development, we interviewed fifteen online jam participants about their learning experiences during their jams. Additionally, we observed and analyzed several jams using activity theory. We found that online game jams support participants' learning through extensive feedback from others during and after the jam. Such feedback sessions were a key social and participatory learning elements for online jams, providing much-need social support. In contrast to the group-focused development in offline jams many participants in our study chose to develop games alone. Many individuals participated in online game jams regularly, treating them as a broader experience than singular events. We use these findings to discuss how we might better design for self-directed learning online and offer suggestions on how to better attune online game jams to the needs of participants.

References

  1. Attwell, G. 2007. Personal Learning Environments-the future of eLearning? Elearning papers. 2, 1 (Jan. 2007), 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Baek, J. and Shore, J. 2016. Promoting Student Engagement in MOOCs. Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (New York, NY, USA, 2016), 293--296.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology. 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Brockett, R.G. and Hiemstra, R. 1991. Self-Direction in Adult Learning: Perspectives on Theory, Research, and Practice. Routledge Series on Theory and Practice of Adult Education in North America. ERIC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, J. et al. 2016. Thousands of Positive Reviews: Distributed Mentoring in Online Fan Communities. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2016), 691--704.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan, C.K.K. 2012. Co-regulation of learning in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a discussion. Metacognition and Learning. 7, 1 (Apr. 2012), 63--73. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012--9086-z.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Clark, W. et al. 2009. Beyond Web 2.0: Mapping the technology landscapes of young learners. Journal of computer assisted learning. 25, 1 (2009), 56--69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Dabbagh, N. and Kitsantas, A. 2012. Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education. 15, 1 (Jan. 2012), 3--8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Dabbagh, N. and Reo, R. 2011. Back to the future: Tracing the roots and learning affordances of social software. Web 2.0-based e-learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching. IGI Global. 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y. 1999. Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Perspectives on activity theory. 19, 38 (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Engestrom, Y. 2000. Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics. 43, 7 (2000), 960--974.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Engeström, Y. and Sannino, A. 2010. Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review. 5, 1 (Jan. 2010), 1--24. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans, S. et al. 2017. More Than Peer Production: Fanfiction Communities As Sites of Distributed Mentoring. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2017), 259--272.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Faas, T. et al. 2018. Watch Me Code: Programming Mentorship Communities on Twitch.Tv. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW (Nov. 2018), 50:1--50:18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3274319.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Fine, G.A. 2012. Tiny publics: A theory of group action and culture. Russell Sage Foundation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Fowler, A. et al. 2013. The evolution and significance of the Global Game Jam. Proc. of the Foundations of Digital Games Conference (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Fowler, A. et al. 2013. The global game jam for teaching and learning. Proccedings of the 4th Annual Conference on Computing and Information Technology Research and Education New Zealand (2013), 28--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Fowler, A. et al. 2015. Trends in organizing philosophies of game jams and game hackathons. GJ Workshop. FDG2015 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Garrison, D.R. 1997. Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult education quarterly. 48, 1 (1997), 18--33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Georgen, C. et al. 2015. From lurking to participatory spectatorship: Understanding affordances of the Dota 2 noob stream. 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. ISLS (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Guevara-Villalobos, O. 2011. Cultures of independent game production: Examining the relationship between community and labour. DiGRA Conference (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Haaranen, L. 2017. Programming As a Performance: Live-streaming and Its Implications for Computer Science Education. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (New York, NY, USA, 2017), 353--358.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Hunicke, R. et al. 2004. MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI (2004), 1722.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Joksimovic, S. et al. 2015. How Do You Connect?: Analysis of Social Capital Accumulation in Connectivist MOOCs. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge (New York, NY, USA, 2015), 64--68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Joksimovic, S. et al. 2015. What Do cMOOC Participants Talk About in Social Media?: A Topic Analysis of Discourse in a cMOOC. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge (New York, NY, USA, 2015), 156--165.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaptelinin, V. and Nardi, B.A. 2006. Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolog, E.A. et al. 2016. Hackathon for Learning Digital Theology in Computer Science. International Journal of Modern Education & Computer Science. 8, 6 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Kou, Y. and Gray, C.M. 2017. Supporting Distributed Critique Through Interpretation and Sense-Making in an Online Creative Community. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, CSCW (Dec. 2017), 60:1--60:18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3134695.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Kreimeier, B. 2002. The case for game design patterns.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Kultima, A. et al. 2016. Building Finnish Game Jam Community Through Positive Social Facilitation. Proceedings of the 20th International Academic Mindtrek Conference (New York, NY, USA, 2016), 433--440.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Kultima, A. 2015. Defining Game Jam. FDG (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Kultima, A. 2018. Design Values of Game Jam Organizers Case: Global Game Jam 2018 in Finland. Proceedings of the International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons, and Game Creation Events (New York, NY, USA, 2018), 21--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Leont'ev, A.N. 1978. Activity, consciousness, and personality. (1978).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Locke, R. et al. 2015. The game jam movement: disruption, performance and artwork. Proceedings of the 10th International conference on the foundations of digital games (FDG 2015), June 22--25, 2015, Pacific Grove, CA (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Luther, K. et al. 2015. Structuring, Aggregating, and Evaluating Crowdsourced Design Critique. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2015), 473--485.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Luther, K. et al. 2010. Why It Works (when It Works): Success Factors in Online Creative Collaboration. Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work (New York, NY, USA, 2010), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Marlow, J. and Dabbish, L. 2014. From Rookie to All-star: Professional Development in a Graphic Design Social Networking Site. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2014), 922--933.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. McGowan, A. et al. 2016. Teaching Programming: Understanding Lecture Capture YouTube Analytics. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (New York, NY, USA, 2016), 35--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Milligan, C. et al. 2013. Patterns of Engagement in Connectivist MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching; Long Beach. 9, 2 (Mar. 2013), 149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Muncy, J. 2017. Making Videogames the Old-Fashioned Way-On a 52-Hour Train Ride. Wired.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Nardi, B.A. 1996. Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction. mit Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Nascimento, G. et al. 2014. Modeling and Analyzing the Video Game Live-Streaming Community. 2014 9th Latin American Web Congress (Oct. 2014), 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Olesen, J.F. and Halskov, K. 2018. The Dynamic Design Space During a Game Jam. Proceedings of the 22Nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference (New York, NY, USA, 2018), 30--38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Pirker, J. et al. 2018. Social Aspects of the Game Development Process in the Global Gam Jam. Proceedings of the International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons, and Game Creation Events (New York, NY, USA, 2018), 9--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Pirker, J. and Voll, K. Group forming processes-experiences and best practice from different game jams.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Roque, R. et al. 2012. From Tools to Communities: Designs to Support Online Creative Collaboration in Scratch. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (New York, NY, USA, 2012), 220--223.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Saadatmand, M. and Kumpulainen, K. 2014. Participants' Perceptions of Learning and Networking in Connectivist MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching; Long Beach. 10, 1 (Mar. 2014), n/a.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Shin, K. et al. 2012. Localizing global game jam: Designing game development for collaborative learning in the social context. International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (2012), 117--132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Siemens, G. 2014. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. (Feb. 2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Steinke, T. et al. 2016. Understanding a Community: Observations from the Global Game Jam Survey Data. Proceedings of the International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons, and Game Creation Events (New York, NY, USA, 2016), 15--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Sylvan, E. 2010. Predicting influence in an online community of creators. (Apr. 2010), 1913--1916.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. The Art Of Game Polish: Developers Speak: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132611/the_art_of_game_polish_developers_.php. Accessed: 2019-06-03.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. The Finish a Game Jam: https://itch.io/jam/the-finish-a-game-jam. Accessed: 2019-06-03.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Thomas, L. and Owen, C. 2013. Living the indie life: Mapping creative teams in a 48 hour game jam and playing with data. Proceedings of The 9th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment: Matters of Life and Death (2013), 15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Warner, J. and Guo, P.J. 2017. Hack.Edu: Examining How College Hackathons Are Perceived By Student Attendees and Non-Attendees. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (New York, NY, USA, 2017), 254--262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Wenger, E. et al. 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard Business Review Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Xu, A. and Bailey, B. 2012. What Do You Think?: A Case Study of Benefit, Expectation, and Interaction in a Large Online Critique Community. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (New York, NY, USA, 2012), 295--304.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Yuan, A. et al. 2016. Almost an Expert: The Effects of Rubrics and Expertise on Perceived Value of Crowdsourced Design Critiques. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2016), 1005--1017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Zheng, S. et al. 2016. The Role of Social Media in MOOCs: How to Use Social Media to Enhance Student Retention. Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (New York, NY, USA, 2016), 419--428.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Zook, A. and Riedl, M.O. 2013. Game conceptualization and development processes in the global game jam. Workshop proceedings of the 8th international conference on the foundations of digital games (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader
About Cookies On This Site

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

Learn more

Got it!