Table 1 Assessment of GIGAME using the RETAIN framework

Relevance

● Whether materials are presented in a way that is relevant to players, their needs, and their learning styles

● Whether the instructional units are relevant to one another, linked together, and built upon previous work as the player’s skill increases

Rating scale

1—little stimulus for learning

2—limited educational focus, some irrelevant content

3—learning objectives are defined, and interest is created

4—game is highly relevant to learners, and challenges are adequate for learning

Evaluators’ rating: 4

The objective of revising various concepts in the law of torts is clear. The design of the game is attractive to the undergraduate audience; 63 out of 64 students agreed stated that the design of the game was appealing and highly motivating to use, and 62 out of 64 students agreed that the game and the whole activity were engaging. Questions posed were carefully designed and selected and are related to the concepts taught in the course, so that students can link them with their prior knowledge and build upon them to answer new application questions.

Embedding

● How closely the academic content is coupled with the gameplay, fantasy, or story content (i.e., the narrative structure, storylines, player experience, dramatic structure, fictive elements)

Rating scale

1—learning content disrupts play

2—learning is exogenous to (or “outside”) the fantasy context

3—learning is somewhat linked to the storyline and includes intellectual challenges and problems

4—content is highly endogenous to the fantasy of the storyline and fully involves the learner

Evaluators’ rating: 2

In the initial design, the game was set in the context of achievements and grades in SMU. This presents a highly identifiable scenario for students. Given that this game is designed for a law of torts course, alternative designs can be further considered, such as a courtroom-like setting if the embeddedness of the game is to be enhanced.

Transfer

● Whether the player is urged to use previous knowledge and apply it to another area or level

Rating scale

1—levels of challenge are not mapped to objectives

2—levels of challenge are similar, with some useful content

3—easy progress through levels via active problem solving, with some higher levels of knowledge being transferable

4—challenging and authentic situations that simulate reality and require knowledge application from various areas

Evaluators’ rating: 2

The game comprises largely of true/false and multiple choice questions, and the knowledge transfer applies primarily to objective, factual, and law-based knowledge. The structure of GIGAME’s gameplay limits the ability of players to transfer knowledge from other areas to the game or from the game to other areas.

Adaptation

● Whether players are compelled to change or create new knowledge to deal with or make sense of something that does not fit their existing ideas and understanding, often as a consequence of transfer

Rating scale

1—information is unstructured and players cannot engage in interactive learning

2—builds upon existing cognitive structures, engages players in some cognitive conflict and reconstruction

3—players are encouraged to go beyond given information; old schemas are identified and adapted to new situations

4—learning becomes an active process that naturally integrates prior knowledge

Evaluators’ rating: 2 for single player mode; 3 for classroom mode

The game may not directly promote students’ adaptation of knowledge because the questions, which serve as the challenges within the game, are in multiple choice or true/false question format. However, when the game is played in classroom mode, some of the questions are open ended, and hence, GIGAME garners a higher adaptation rating here. More authentic real-life problems that encourage the player to discover for themselves new concepts based on their prior knowledge may be incorporated in future improvements to GIGAME.

Immersion

● Whether the player is engaged and investing intellectually in the context of the game

Rating scale

1—no formative feedback and little active participation

2—elements of play are not in sync with learning objectives and players are not engaged

3—learners are involved cognitively, physically, and emotionally

4—favors belief creation and includes opportunities for reciprocal action

Evaluators’ rating: 3

The game requires players to be fully engaged and conversant with targeted academic content and questions. Taking on avatar roles with special powers and landing on the same square as the “Professor” character can enhance players’ experience and motivate players to complete the game. To some extent, the game is designed to enable the players to be immersed in the game and achieve a state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi 1990). As players are observed to be involved in the game with a clear set of goals and progress, the game has clear and immediate feedback, there is balance between the perceived challenges of the task at hand and players’ own perceived skills, and players are likely to be in some state of flow and therefore immersed (Elliot and Dweck 2005). The high satisfaction ratings given by students also validates this view, as experiencing a state of flow in an activity also tends to increase satisfaction with that activity (Csikszentmihalyi 1990). However, a rating of 4 was not given as the evaluators deemed the game not complex enough for players to feel completely sucked into the game.

Naturalization

● How well players develop habitual and spontaneous use of information is derived within the game

Rating scale

1—little opportunity for mastery of knowledge and skills

2—replay is encouraged to improve speed of processing

3—encourages synthesis of elements and judgment

4—players become efficient content users and spontaneously use acquired knowledge

Evaluators’ rating: 2

Repeated playing, if done purposefully, enables content to be ingrained in players’ habitual thinking. Formative feedback to remediate misconceptions of learning may be added to enhance the learning experience of GIGAME. If students feel that they are learning, they will be encouraged to play repeatedly. More variations to the gameplay (such as new questions, bonus challenges) can add curiosity and context variation to the game, encouraging students to revisit (and internalize) the academic content.