Edulearn paper 2.0 Final

IMPROVING COLLABORATION FOR CHILDREN WITH PDD-NOS
THROUGH A SERIOUS GAME WITH MULTI-TOUCH INTERACTION
M. van Veen1, A. de Vries2, F. Cnossen1, R. Willems2
1
Department of Artificial Intelligence at University of Groningen
2
TNO Information and Communication Technology
Groningen, The Netherlands
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract
A serious game with multi-touch interaction was developed in order to teach children with PDD-NOS
how to collaborate. With the use of multi-touch technology two children can work simultaneously with
the same computer and screen. The game consists of six levels with different mathematical problems
designed to learn specific basic collaboration skills. The game was tested for four weeks at an
elementary school for special education. Because of the limited size of the present study, no firm
conclusions can be drawn but teacher ratings showed improvements in children when playing the
game, although little structural behavior changes were observed yet in the classroom. A notable
exception was one child diagnosed with autism, who showed significant improvements in all
collaboration skills in class. A larger and more long-term study might show that more children
accomplish this transfer of skills to the classroom and possibly to other aspects of life as well.
Keywords - Multi-touch, serious game, tabletop, education, collaboration, autism, PDD-NOS,
elementary school, children, mathematics.
1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Educational renewals
In 2005 a set of educational reforms were introduced in the Netherlands under the name “New
Learning”. Key to New Learning is that education should enhance insight and understanding. Learning
should take place by solving realistic problems within a realistic context. This problem-driven
education has students solve problems in project groups with little assistance of a teacher, using peer
consulting and collaboration instead.
However, children with an autism spectrum disorder suffer under New Learning. These children have
difficulty with working in groups, collaboration and taking initiative, which are prerequisites to New
Learning. As a result, many of these children who formerly went to a regular school, with some extra
attention, now have to go to a school for special education because they no longer fit in [4].
The present study aimed at improving collaboration skills in children with an autism spectrum disorder
by using a serious game with multi-touch interaction. Before explaining the game and the experimental
set up, we will briefly explain about autism and PDD-NOS.
1.2
Autism and PDD-NOS
Autism is a neurologic development disorder characterized by problems with interaction,
communication and imagination. The consequences are a limited and repetitive pattern of interests
and activities. Autism is a heterogeneous disorder with symptoms of varying severity. The term autism
spectrum is used emphasizing that symptoms range from singular developmental disorders (or
multiple disorders in a very mild form) to very severe (multiple) developmental disorders.
In the middle of the range is a group of disorders without clear borders known as PDD-NOS:
Pervasive Developmental Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified. As the last part of the name suggests,
PDD-NOS is a leftover group. Children with PDD-NOS do not fully meet the criteria of any of the
disorders from the autism spectrum, but they do have problems with social interaction and
communication, and have stereotypical behavioural patterns and interests. The social disorder of
children with PDD-NOS lies not in the quantity, but in the quality of social interactions. Especially the
reciprocity of the interaction is a problem. This disorder is not so severe as to impede social
interaction, but severe enough in that these children do not fit in the regular education system.
2
2.1
A.
PREVIOUS WORK
Learning social interaction
Theories
The two most important theories on the cause of the autism spectrum disorder are the Central
Coherence Theory and the Theory of Mind (ToM) [28].
The Central Coherence Theory explains the problems with social interaction as a malfunction in the
information processing. According to this theory, children with a disorder from the autism spectrum are
not able to integrate the information they perceive into a meaningful whole [8]. The inability to
construct coherence not only has consequences for social interaction and communication but also for
the learning process of these children.
At approximately the age of 4, children start to develop a ToM. This means they start to realize other
people can think and feel different than they do. Gradually they develop the ability to empathize with
the reasoning and emotions of others. And eventually the child learns to predict the intentions,
emotions and plans of others. Baron-Cohen et al. [2] showed this ToM is not well developed in
children with PDD-NOS. By the lack of ToM-skills the children are not able to empathize with someone
else, which causes problems in social interaction.
Both theories point to brain-dysfunctions as the cause of the problem children with an autism spectrum
disorder have with social interaction. Because of this, most studies on social intervention focus not on
the cause but on reducing the effect, by improving problematic skills.
B.
Social skill intervention
There is a vast amount of literature on social skills interventions for children with an autism spectrum
disorder. Typical social skills that have been the focus of treatment include eye contact, conversational
skills (content and intonation of speech, number of words spoken and number of interactions), emotion
recognition, understanding and prediction and social problem solving.
Bauminger [3] performed a 7-month trial with 14 high-functioning children with autism. The children
worked for 3 hours a week with their teacher on three topics: emotional understanding, social
interaction and social problem solving. Twice a week the children also met with a peer and
participated in social activities about the skills they learned while working with their teacher. Social
problem solving and interaction were taught by using scripts and stories. Through these scripts and
stories the children learned initiating a conversation with a friend, comforting a friend and sharing
experiences with a friend. The results showed improvements in emotional understanding, social
interaction and social problem solving, but Bauminger [3] questioned whether the improvements
exceeded the learned areas and transferred to more global social competence.
©
LeGoff [14] devised a LEGO treatment program to improve the social competence of children with an
autism spectrum disorder. In his study he defined social competence as the total of three skills: (1)
Initiation of social contact with peers, (2) duration of social interaction and (3) decreases in autistic
aloofness and rigidity. 47 Subjects waited at least 12 weeks (control condition) after which they
attended one individual therapy session and one group session a week for a period of at least 12
weeks (experimental condition). The individual sessions were about developing communication and
reciprocity as well as increasing self-efficacy and task focus through the building of LEGO® structures.
The group sessions were about shared building and playing with LEGO®. Results showed significant
gains in the three measures of social competence.
Although there is a lot of literature on social skills intervention with components focusing on social
interaction and peer involvement but literature on collaboration is absent. The study concerning
LEGO® therapy does illustrate the power of using toys and games for learning social interaction.
C.
Social training programs
There are a number of social skills training programs used in The Netherlands such as “Nietes-Welles”
[7] – No-Yes, “Leren denken en leren begrijpen van emoties” [24] – Learn how to understand and think
about emotions and “Spelend leren, leren spelen” [22] – Playfull learning, learning how to play.
“Nietes-Welles” is the most used training program in The Netherlands. It is based on Skillstreaming
[10] and adapted to children with an autism spectrum disorder. The training consists of instruction and
role-playing games and covers topics like greeting adults and peers, listening and storytelling,
controlling emotions and simple cooperation. But like most training programs it is expensive and not
part of the regular curriculum.
2.2
Serious gaming
Most children find it fun to work with a computer at school. This is even more so for children with PDDNOS. The computer is a safe place, sheltered from the noise around them and has a predictable
setting, interaction and feedback. Working with a computer has a very structured and predictable
nature. Performing a task has a number of well-defined steps leading to task-completion. Furthermore,
the delivery of information is mostly visual [1], which is positive for children with PDD-NOS, as they are
generally better in understanding visual information.
A.
Games and learning
It is only a few years ago that experts were still questioning the appropriateness of multimedia and
games as learning tools. Today major corporations and the military are relying on simulations to train
new employees and even prepare soldiers for war zone action. But teachers still find the idea of using
games as an instructional resource controversial.
However, play is a primary socialization and learning mechanism used by both humans and animals
[23]. Kittens for instance, practice attack skills through pretend-play and modeling. Their mother does
not learn them to hunt through direct instruction. Games make use of the same principles of modeling
and play as a learning strategy.
Another learning principle embedded in games, is that of situated cognition. Games provide a
meaningful context in which learning takes place. What a player must learn is directly related to the
environment in which he learns and demonstrates it. This type of learning is more effective than
learning that occurs outside its context such as most formal instruction [5].
According to Piaget’s [19] theory children learn by encountering a cognitive disequilibrium. When
retrieving new information a process of assimilation tries to fit this information in existing slots. When
this new information does not fit, there are contradictory beliefs and through a process of
accommodation, the existing model of the world has to be changed to fit the new information. Games
embody this process of cognitive disequilibrium and resolution. Playing a game requires a constant
cycle of hypothesis formulation, testing and revising [26].
B.
Definition
There are a lot of commercial simulation and role-playing games such as Civilisation® and Dungeon
and dragons® that embody some of the above-mentioned learning principles. Games specifically build
to deliver engaging learning experiences on a variety of topics are so-called serious games.
Michael and Chen [16] give the following definition of a serious game: ‘A serious game is a game in
which education (in its various forms) is the primary goal, rather than entertainment’.
C.
Designing serious games
The problem in designing serious games is to find the balance between educational and play
elements. Taking a successful game and ‘academizing’ it or ‘gaming-up’ existing educational software
can results in so-called edutainment software. This software has, instead of harnessing the power of
games for learning, resulted in what Papert [18] calls “Shavian reversals”: offspring that inherit the
worst characteristics of both parents (in this case, boring games and drill-and-kill learning). Software
that may be educationally sound as learning tools but has failed as a game [26].
According to Garris et al. [9] the key aspect of effective learning is motivation. Players who are highly
motivated are likely to engage in, devote effort to, and persist longer at a particular activity. However
motivation needs to be sustained through feedback, reflection and active involvement in order for
designed learning to take place. For effective learning with games, they should be engaging,
motivating, supporting and interesting to the learner but at the same time reflect what is being learned.
A considerable amount of research on serious games has been conducted. Analyses on the
effectiveness of games as educational tools have found they promote learning and reduce
instructional time over multiple disciplines [25][27][21]. However a more recent review of the literature
by Michell & Savill-Smith [15] pointed out it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions. They argue the
literature base is relatively sparse, with a lot of studies showing conflicting outcomes. As well there is a
lack of well-controlled studies, with studies showing methodological problems. More research is still
needed to confirm whether games are sound educational tools.
The number of serious games available for primary, secondary or higher education is still limited.
Some of the few examples are Supercharged, Environmental detectives, Virtual U and River City.
Supercharged is a serious game designed by The Education Arcade, based in the MIT media studies
program, to help students to systematically build understanding about electrostatics. Players must
navigate their ship through maze-like electromagnetic worlds. By changing the charge and placing it
strategically, they can move the ship through space. Jenkins et al. [13] describe the use of the game in
three middle-school classes of the Boston College. Compared to the students who were taught
electrostatics through more conventional means, the students who used the game showed about 20%
better scores on the post-test. Also these students showed deeper understanding of scientific
visualizations and the principles of electromagnetism.
Environmental detectives is an outdoors game played by teams of students equipped with GPSenabled pocket pc’s. The students are enlisted through a video briefing from the University president
to investigate the spill of a toxin. The students have two hours to locate the source of the spill, identify
the responsible party, design a remediation plan and brief the University president on the health and
legal risks. The students have to navigate to real locations on campus were they perform simulated
field tests, consult with virtual colleagues and design solutions for the problems. While no
experimental study was conducted, the experimenters found the game effective in engaging students
in the authentic practices of environmental engineers.
River City, developed by the Harvard graduate school of education, is a virtual world where students
learn the skills of hypothesis-formulation and experimental design with content from biology and
ecology. River city is a virtual city populated by the students, the instructors and computer-based
agents. The students have to work in teams to develop hypothesis regarding one of three strands of
illness in the town (water-borne, air-borne or insect-borne). They can gain information by visiting the
university or the museum and interviewing people. A large-scale test with 11 teachers and over 1000
students was conducted. Dede et al. [6] found that students in the experimental condition improved
their biology knowledge by 32% while the control students improved only 17%. Furthermore the
students were highly engaged, attendance improved and disruptive behaviour dropped.
Using a computer, especially in combination with a serious game, can be a strong tool in motivating
children with PDD-NOS to learn, but it is also an anti-social activity. The child sits alone behind the
computer doing his/her task without interaction with other children. The use of multi-touch screens
might help overcome this problem.
2.3
Multi-touch screens
Traditional machine interfaces consisted of hard controls such as dials, switches, keys and
pushbuttons. These hard controls promote easy learning as their form follows their function and they
are operated with an one-to-one correspondence to their actions. However they are inflexible and not
suited for complex tasks [17]. The use of computers allowed for soft controls in the form of graphical
interfaces. These interfaces are flexible in that they can visualize the controls needed for a particular
task. The use of menu’s allows for many controls in a little space making these interfaces better suited
for controlling complex tasks. The downside of graphical interfaces is that they are operated
symbolically through a keyboard and a mouse. There is no obvious relation between keys and
buttons, and actions.
The use of a touch screen overcomes this problem as a user can touch the controls on the screen just
as they would if they were hard controls. This allows a more natural interaction while still benefitting
from the advantages of a grapical interface. Multi-touch adds the ability of using multiple fingers and
hands and enables natural gestures such as rotating and pinching. Inherently multi-touch also implies
multi-user interaction as multiple users can use the screen simultaneously, enabling physical
collaboration at a computer.
Multi-touch is a technology that has been around for some time but has only recently moved out of the
research phase. Microsoft has just started sales of their Surface® tabletop but only to select
companies and SMART, vendor of electronic whiteboards, started sales of their SMART Table a small
multi-touch tabletop for primary schools. While these tabletops are becoming commercially available,
the body of scientific literature is steadily growing with research focusing predominantly on the multiuser abilities of these tabletops, such as cooperative work and decision making. Research regarding
collaborative games on multi-touch tabletops are only just starting to appear.
Gross et al. [11] constructed a multi-touch table for exploring competitive and cooperative multi-player
games. They developed a small Pong-like tennis game named Puh. Puh can be played with two to
four players at the same time where players use two fingers to form a bat in their goal area. During
three days some 100 players tested Puh in games of 5 to 10 minutes. While no formal study was
done, unstructured interviews and observations showed the emergence of cooperative behavior.
Some players teached other players how to play the game and some players of the same team started
helping each other.
Piper et al. [20] developed a game called Shared Interfaces to Develop Effective Social Skills (SIDES).
SIDES runs on a tabletop computer and is designed for teaching social skills to children with the
Asperger’s syndrome. It is a 4-player puzzle game designed to increase collaboration and decrease
competition. The game is about determining the optimal route for a frog over a rastered board. Points
can be scored by letting the route of the frog intersect with bugs and flies present on the board. Each
user starts the game with nine tiles with arrows on them to determine the route. The players have to
lay their tiles to form the optimal route of the frog together, from the start lily to the end lily. Once all
tiles are on the board they can vote to test if their route is the most optimal.
A first evaluation session of SIDES showed the players remained highly engaged in the activity and
were excited by the novelty of the touch technology. They found the use of the touch-sensitive
tabletop computer workable. The session outcomes also suggested that explicit game rules such as
turn taking and piece ownership could help less-engaged and more quiet players to be more involved.
Before the second evaluation session, computer-enforced turn taking and restricted acces to game
pieces was implemented based on the results of session one. The results of the second session
showed, that the implemented changes encouraged cooperative group work. Even in round two where
the restrictions were turned off, the players kept working together.
The results of Gross et al. [11] and Piper et al. [20] show multi-touch games can deliver engaging
gaming experiences and can invite collaboration between players. Additionally, the SIDES study
showed that a well-designed multi-touch game can help teaching children social skills by keeping
them motivated and helping them to collaborate.
2.4
Present study
As was stated in the introduction, it is vital for children with an autism spectrum disorder to learn how
to collaborate so they make a chance in going to a regular school. This study aims at developing a
serious game running on a multi-touch tabletop that is affordable and can easily be used by teachers
in a school setting. The combination of a serious game with multi-touch technology should allow for an
engaging learning experience of collaboration. The goal of the game was to teach children with PDDNOS to collaborate in pairs with the use of a multi-touch tabletop. In designing the game we involved
two game experts in addition to teachers from schools for special education and educational advisors
from the Regional Expertise Centre Northern Netherlands for behavioral problems (RENN4).
This study is part of the TNO programme on future ICT use in the field of learning environments. In
this programme the design and practical use of future ICT and new applications is researched,
together with the consequences and its implications on future learning processes. The focus of the
2009 programme is learning through collaborative and collective interaction in virtual worlds, such as
2.0 environments but also 3D learning environments, in the context of the increasing societal
importance of life long learning. One of the central research questions in this programme is how will
ICT initiate and change learning through new ways of interaction, in particular in virtual environments
and what approach will stimulate or facilitate necessary changes involved. Results and conclusions
will be drawn based on practical experiments in which teachers and students participate.
2.5
Elements of education
In close collaboration with the aforementioned educational advisors the following educational
requirements for the game were identified.
•
Most information should be visually presented as children with PDD-NOS are generally of the
visual type.
2.6
•
The interface should be simple as the children are easily distracted and confused.
•
Working towards collaboration should occur in small steps.
•
Good behavior and accomplishments should be rewarded.
•
The game progress of the players should be comprehensible to the teachers.
•
The game should feature real educational content from courses such as mathematics,
language or history.
•
The game should have variation in the game play or have multiple levels with different tasks.
•
The level of difficulty should be adjustable for the game to be challenging to all players.
•
Learning should take place in the context of the material.
•
The players should be able to compete with one another.
Basic collaboration skills
In close collaboration with the aforementioned experts we identified six basic collaborative skills
children with PDD-NOS have problems with.
1. Waiting for their turn.
2. Handling mistakes of the other.
3. Receiving criticism.
4. Sharing goals, tasks and objects.
5. Discussing a task with others.
6. Realizing one’s actions have consequences for others.
This research focused on improving these six basic skills.
3
3.1
GAME DESIGN
Game story
Raketeer is a company involved in spacetravel. When the players first start the game the boss of
Raketeer explains the story. The players are hired by Raketeer to help build a rocket that can reach a
newly discovered planet, called Verido. It is off the utmost importance for Raketeer to reach Verido
before the rivals do and the players are here to accomplish this task.
Through six levels the players have to collect parts for the rocket, collect inventory, mix fuel and
defend their rocket to ensure its launch by solving equations.
3.2
General design
The game, called Raketeer, consists of six levels in which the players gradually learn to collaborate.
The whole game is about building and launching a rocket and the math equations are placed in that
context. Although all six levels revolve around solving equations they are designed to teach the six
basic collaborative skills defined in the previous chapter. To keep the players interested, all six levels
have different tasks to accomplish and work in a different way.
At the start of the game each player chooses a name and a character creating their own virtual
identity. Also the players’ arithmetic level can be selected so the player’s teacher can chose the
appropriate difficulty of the equations the player will have to solve. Players with different arithmetic
skills can play together while still being challenged.
The players are rewarded with math points and buddy bonuses. Each correctly solved equation is
rewarded with 5 math points. An incorrect answer costs the player a math point. From level 3 on,
players can also earn positive or negative buddy bonuses for collaborative behavior, such as waiting
for their turn or sharing.
Raketeer logs all the scores, all equations and the answers given. The game has a scoreboard where
the players can evaluate their scores per level and compare them with other players.
The design and interface of the game has been kept clean and simple to avoid distraction and
confusion. This is important for the target group and use in the school setting. The use of auditive
information is limited for the same reason.
Raketeer is played with two players at the time in game sessions of 4 minutes. After each game,
depending on the total score, a player can receive a promotion to the next level. However both players
have to be promoted to be able to play the next level.
3.3
Level 1 – collecting rocket parts
In level 1 the players have to collect parts for the rocket by solving equations (fig. 1). To enter a
solution the players can adjust the green and orange dials by dragging one or more finger(s) over
them. A correct answer is rewarded with a part for the rocket.
The goal of level 1 is to introduce the game, get comfortable with the controls and get used to working
on the same machine with another player. The players start at level 1 with separate tasks. Each player
has its own part of the screen and its own equations.
This level is focused on introducing the game and does not focus on one of the skills mentioned in
section 2.6 are incorporated.
Figure 1. Level 1: Collecting rocket parts.
3.4
Figure 2. Level 2: Collecting rocket parts together.
Level 2 – collecting rocket parts together
In level 2 the players again collect parts for the rocket by solving equations, however now they collect
these parts together (fig 2.).
The players stand next to each other and start working on the same goal. The players still have their
own part of the screen and their own equations, but now collect components for the rocket together.
This level starts with the first step towards collaboration, and works on skill 4: sharing goals.
3.5
Level 3 – counting passengers
In level 3 the players have to count the number of people working in the rocket so the boss can check
for saboteurs and spies (fig. 3). The equations are composed of two parts: the left and the right side.
The direction and the collor of the arrows indicates whether the people are leaving (a substraction) or
entering (an addition) the rocket. A green arrow pointing towards the rocket indicates people are
entering the rocket. A orange arrow pointing away from the rocket indicates people are leaving the
rocket. The equation pictured in figure 3 is 4 – 3 + 4.
The goal of level 3 is to teach the players to wait for their turn. The players are both presented with the
same four possible answers to the equation. A green lining of the answer box indicates whose turn it
is. Answering before your turn results in a negative buddy bonus and waiting for your turn is rewarded
with a positive buddy bonus. The turn is chosen at random with an ‘emax’ maximum of consequtive
turns. The ‘emax’ parameter is set depending on the players total score at level 3. So as the players
get higher total scores, they are provoked with an increasing (possible) waiting time.
This level works on skill 1: waiting for their turn, but also on skill 2: handling mistakes of the other and
3: receiving critisim. The players have to wait for their buddy to solve their equation to be able to solve
an equation and score points themselves. This provokes irritation when a the other player is slow or
makes mistakes in solving their equation and often leads to critique. So the waiting player trains its
ability to handle mistakes of the other player. And the other player has to handle to critique given by
the first player.
Figure 3. Level 3: Counting passengers.
3.6
Figure 4. Level 4: Collecting rocket inventory.
Level 4 – collecting rocket inventory
At level 4 the players have to collect items for the first flight of the rocket. The players have to solve
equations to earn items. To finish level 4, the players have to collect 10 pieces of 10 items. The
players can collect 4 different items at a time. Starting the level these 4 items are selected at random
and showed in the green collection box of each player.
The goal of level 4 is to share items and to pay attention to the other player’s task. When a player
earns an item he can keep the item by dragging the item over to his collection box or give the item to
its buddy (the other player) by dragging it to the share box in the middle of the screen. When a player
tries to keep an item he currently does not collect the item is wasted. When a player tries to give an
item to it’s buddy the buddy currently does not collect the item is also wasted. So the players have to
monitor the other players collection box and decide whether or not they want to share.
This level works on skill 4: sharing objects.
3.7
Level 5 – mixing fluel
Starting level 5 the rocket is finished and the players can admire what they have accomplished. But
now they have to mix fuel for the first launch (fig. 5).
The goal of level 5 is to perform a task together while communicating. The players have to make up an
equation with the given sign and answer. The players have to decide on a solution together
(depending on the equation multiple solutions are possible) and turn the dials accordingly to mix the
fuel. Here they really have to collaborate to perform well.
This level works on skill 3: receiving criticism, skill 5: discussing a task and skill 6: realizing one’s
actions have consequences for others.
3.8
Level 6 – defending the rocket
The rocket is finished and fueled up, but the competition is trying to destroy the rocket before it can
launch. The players have to shoot down incoming missiles before they hit their rocket (fig. 6).
The goal of level six is to perform two tasks at the same time, together, while under pressure. The
players have to solve equations to earn shots, which can then be used to shoot down incoming
missiles by touching them. After the players have finished level 6 the outro movie shows the rocket
being launched. Afterwards the boss congratulates both players on their achievement.
This level works on skill 2: handling mistakes of the other, skill 3: receiving cristicism, skill 4: sharing
goals, tasks and objects, skill 5: discussing a task and skill 6: realizing one’s actions have
consequences for others.
Figure 5. Level 5: Mixing fuel.
3.9
Figure 6. Level 6: Defending the rocket.
Measurements
Before and after the game was played, the teachers rated the children on their arithmetic abilities and
on the six collaborative skills (see section 3.2). The arithmetic abilities were rated on a scale of 6 with
1 being the lowest and 6 being the highest score. The collaborative skills were rated on a scale of 5,
with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest score. Furthermore the children’s behavior during play
and in the classroom was evaluated through teacher interviews. During play Raketeer logged data on
the children’s progress, the equations made and the time played. At every game the experimenter
observed the children during play. At the end of the testing period the children were interviewed about
their experiences.
4
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Raketeer was tested at an elementary school for special education. During 4 weeks, 13 boys and 1
girl, roughly representing the normal population with an autism spectrum disorder, from the age of 8 12 played a session of 20 minutes every day.
Total playtime was 2 hours and 35 minutes on average. Fig. 7 shows the subjects game progress in
terms of the highest level they reached.
Figure 7. Histogram of the game progress.
As can be seen in fig. 7, apart from one subject all subjects reached level 4, and almost half of the
subjects reached the last level. Only one pair of subjects was able to finish the game during the test
phase. The subject who only reached level 3 was regularly absent.
The subjects found Raketeer fun to play, and showed no disinterest or lack of motivation during the
test period. The subjects were constantly trying to improve their scores, both out of curiosity about the
next level and out of peer competition. The subjects viewed the scoreboard after almost every game to
monitor their progress and see if they outperformed the other children in their class. At the end of the
last session the subjects were asked to order a set of activities on cards (doing math in class, playing
math games in class, playing math games on the internet, playing computer games at home and
playing Raketeer) from 1 (least fun) to 5 (most fun). Out of the 14 children, 8 gave Raketeer a 5,
ordering it even above playing computer games at home. Three other children rated Rakteer with a 4.
Figure 8. Pre and post test results for the arithmetic abilities ratings.
Fig. 8 shows the pre and post-test ratings for the subject’s arithmetic abilities. Half of the subjects
show the same pre and post-test scores and half of the subjects show higher post-test scores. One
individual showed a lower post than pre-test score.
Figure 9. Average pre and post-test results of the collaborative skills ratings.
Both the average pre and post-test collaborative skills ratings are plotted in fig. 9. As can be seen, all
collaborative skills show higher average post than pre-test scores, indicating improvement of social
behavior in class. However teacher interviews showed only little behavioral transfer to the classroom,
apart from one individual. This subject showed considerable improvements on all social skills. Starting
out as the most anti-social subject, who stayed in the classroom during breaks and could not play near
©
other children, he is now able to play to sustain cooperative LEGO play with other children.
5
DISCUSSION
This study set out to explore the possibilities of combining a serious game with multi-touch interaction
to teach collaboration for children with PDD-NOS. Results on behavioral change during play are
positive, with almost half of the subjects reaching level 6 and teacher interviews indicating improved
behavior. Transfer of skills was only partly established as only one individual showed significant
improvements of social skills in the classroom. Further analysis of the data should reveal the cause of
the contradicting pre and post-test teacher ratings and the teacher interviews. As for the arithmetic
abilities the results showed some improvement, however these improvements could be the effect of
the regular math courses or the limited period of this study.
Whether the approach of using a multi-touch enabled serious game to teach collaborative skills is
valuable is not yet clear. A larger sample size might be necessary, although preliminary results show
at least one success in a severely anti-social boy. A larger study is needed to confirm our preliminary
results. Also a longer period of use could provide more evidence and possibly further improve the
transfer of knowledge to the classroom and more in general: to real life.
References
[1] Baltussen, M., Clijsen, A., Leenders, Y. Leerlingen met autisme in de klas. Drukkerij Giethoorn ten
Brink, Meppel, 2003.
[2] Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., Frith, U. Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”?,
Cognition, 21 (1985), 37-46.
[3] Bauminger, N. The Facilitation of Social-Emotional Understanding and Social Interaction in HighFunctioning Children with Autism: Intervention Outcomes. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 32, 4 (August 2002).
[4] Besseling, J. Hagen, B., Andreissen, S., Peele, A., Crone, M., Kok, L., Vos, E. Toename gebruik
ondersteuning voor jongeren met een gezondheidsbeperking. Unpublished, 2007. Available at
http://www.tno.nl/downloads%5CKvL-APAR-129_2007_3_10949.pdf.
[5] Brown, J. S., Collins, A., Duguid, P. Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational
Researcher, 18, 1, 1989, 32-42.
[6] Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2005). Students' motivation and
learning of science in a multi-user virtual environment. Unpublished, 2005.
http://muve.gse.harvard.edu/rivercityproject/documents/motivation_muves_aera_2005.pdf
[7] Emmen, R., Plasmeijer, M. Sociale Vaardigheidstraining van Autistische Jongeren via de
Goldstein Groepstherapie. Engagement, 18, 6, 1996, 4-8.
[8] Frith, U. Autism: Explaining the enigma. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, 1989.
[9] Garris, R., Ahlers, R, Driskell, J. E. Games, Motivation, and Learning: A Research and Pratice
Model. Simulation & Gaming, 33, 4, 2002, 441-467.
[10] Goldstein, A. P., Sprafkin, R. P., Gershaw, N.J., Klein, P. Skillstreaming the Adolescent – A
Structured Learning Approach to Teaching Prosocial Skills. Research Press, Champaign, 1980.
[11] Gross, The cuetable: cooperative and competitive multi-touch interaction on a tabletop. CHI ’08
Extended abstracts on Human factors in human computing systems, April 05-10, 2008, Florence,
Italy.
[12] Howlin, P. Practitioner Review: Psychological and Educational Treatments for Autism. Journal for
Child Psychology and Psychiatry and allied disciplines, 39, 3, 1998, 307-322.
[13] Jenkins, H., Klopfer, E. Squire, H., Tan, P. Entering the education arcade. Computers in
Entertainment, 1, 1, 2003.
[14] LeGoff, D. B. Use of LEGO as a Therapeutic Medium for Improving Social Competence. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 5, 2004.
[15] Mitchell, A. & Savill-Smith, C. The use of computer and video games for learning: A review of the
literature. Unpublished, 2004. http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1529.pdf
[16] Michael, D. R., Chen, S. L. Serious games: games that educate, train and inform. Thompson
Course Technology, Boston, 2006.
[17] Nakatani, L. H., Rohrlich, J. A. Soft machines: A philosophy of user-computer interface design.
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1983, 19-23.
[18] Papert, S. Does Easy Do It? Children, Games, and Learning. Game Developer, June 1998, 88.
[19] Piaget, J. Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. Routledge, Florence, 1999.
[20] Piper, A. M., O’Brien, E., Morris, M. R., Winograd, T. SIDES: A Cooperative Tabletop Computer
Game for Social Skills Development. Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on
Computer supported cooperative work, 2006, 1-10.
[21] Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., Whitehill, B. V. The Effectiveness of Games for
Educational Purposes: A Review of Recent Research. Simulation and Gaming, 23, 3, 1992, 261276.
[22] Reenders R., Spijker W. Spelend leren, leren spleen. Van Gorkum, Assen, 1854.
[23] Salen, K. Zimmerman, E. Rules of Play. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2003.
[24] Steerneman, P. Leren denken over denken en leren begrijpen van emotie. Maklu, Apeldoorn,
1997.
[25] Szczurek, M. Meta-Analysis of Simulation Games Effectiveness for Cognitive Learning, Ph.D.
diss, Indiana University, 1982.
[26] Van Eck, R. Digital Game-Based Learning: It's Not Just the Digital Natives Who are just Restless.
Educause Review, 41, 2, 2006.
[27] VanSickle, R. L., A Quantitative Review of Research on Instructional Simulation Gaming: A
Twenty-Year Perspective. Theory and Research in Social Education, 14, 3, 1986, 245-264.
[28] Vermeulen, P. Voor alle duidelijkheid. EPO, Gent, 2003.
[29] Zaragoza, N. Vaughan, S., McIntosh, R. Social skills interventions and children with behavior
problems: a review. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 1991, 260-275.