Game Rhetoric: Interaction Design Model of Persuasive Learning for Serious Games Zarwina Yusoff 1, Amirrudin Kamsin1, 1

Department of Computer System & Technology, Faculty of Computer Science & Information Technology, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. {[email protected],[email protected]}

Abstract. Serious Games is an emerging technology which can be used in a learning environment. This technology is an effective interaction design paradigm which can be embedded as a persuasive learning tool to attract learners’ attention. This article will explore the concept of game rhetoric as an element in game systems for persuading students to engage with the learning context. We identified three types of rhetorical concept which are: visual, procedural and digital rhetoric integrated with the current game rhetoric model to support attention elements. Three interaction design elements have been used in the model to support learners’ attention: cognition, emotion and social interaction. In this paper, we propose a new based on game rhetoric perspectives to support user interaction in Serious Games for persuasive learning. Keywords: Game rhetoric, Serious game, Interaction design, Persuasive learning

1

Introduction

The embedding of persuasion is undoubtedly very important in today’s learning environments. The technology can enhance social interaction among students when the computer application is used for interaction among them in the classroom (Daud et.al, 2013). Human Computer Interaction (HCI) emerged in the late 1970s, and generated much research into interactive systems intended to persuade user interest (Carol, 2014). Following from this, there has been much more research into persuasion technology, which has contributed to changing student behaviors, attitudes, and generating learning outcomes. Serious Games (SG) is the one an interactive media technologies that combines animation with narration to improve player performance based on a games rule system (Sorden, 2005). The emergence of SG in the late 1970s 1

Please note that the LNCS Editorial assumes that all authors have used the western naming convention, with given names preceding surnames. This determines the structure of the names in the running heads and the author index.

changed the traditional concepts of education when captology was embedded in various computer platforms as a type of educational persuasive technology for achieving learning outcomes (Fogg, 2003). A number of researchers have noted the effectiveness of persuasion in learning environment (Daud et.al 2013, Bakri et.al 2014, Zulkifli et.al 2013). Based on this, we aim to develop a persuasive learning model for Serious Games which aims to implement the concept of game rhetoric as a learning tool to support the concept of persuasion. In order to instill persuasion in the gaming context, we have identified previous research that has applied the persuasive element in learning environments. Much of the research has discussed the impact of persuasion on users, such as motivation, personalization, emotion, ethical issues, experiences, and the cognitive process of comprehension (Zulkifli et.al, 2013). Additional works by Bakri et.al (2014) have proven that a persuasive system design can be used to develop the interactive Al-Furqan Courseware for early childhood learning using Toddlers Learning theory and multimedia principles. We propose to include a ‘game rhetoric’ concept in order to persuade learners through the interaction design model by incorporating persuasive elements from the Greek philosopher, Aristotles. He stated that there are three main elements of persuasion, which consist of pathos, ethos and logos. The concept of game rhetoric can be used to persuade players to interact with the games and to maintain players’ interest in the game’s goal and challenges. In order to construct the proposed model, we used the three elements of interaction design which were proposed by Rogers et.al (2011). Cognitive interaction, emotional interaction and social interaction make up the graphical user interface (GUI) paradigm which will be integrated into the proposed model to support learners’ attention. 1.1

Objectives of this paper

The objectives of this paper are as follows: 1. 2.

1.2

To review existing models or frameworks of game rhetoric in the persuasion learning context. To propose an interaction design model of persuasive learning for Serious Games based on game rhetoric perspectives. Structure of Paper

This article will present the use of the interaction design concept in SG through the representation of game rhetoric. Section I introduces previous research on the concept of persuasion and provides a brief introduction to game rhetoric. It is followed by the literature review in section II which explains the study of game design. Section III explains how the cognitive element contributes to the persuasive environment through the concept of interaction design. Section IV elaborates the proposed model and section V discusses the strengths and limitations of the study. Lastly, section VI provides a conclusion and recommendations for future work to address the limitations of this study.

2

Study of Game Design

The study of Game Design has indicated that pedagogical issues are an important element to be embedded in game design. Regarding this issue, Hunicke (2000) proposed the MDA framework of games, which consists of mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics, as one of the formal approaches to understanding game design and development. In contrast, Jarvinen (2008), proposed two components of game design, game rhetoric and mechanics, as strong components in designing a game system. Figure 1 shows the concept of game design.

Fig. 1. A Study of Game Design This study has adopted the two components of game design from Jarvinen (2008), game mechanics and game rhetoric, for its direction. Game Rhetoric has been included to overcome the limitations of persuasive learning. Based on this, the interaction design paradigm has been used to attract learners’ attention while playing games. 2.1 Game Mechanics Game mechanics can be defined as a method invoked by agents for interacting with the game world. According to Hunicke (2000), game mechanics comprises the visual representations and algorithm for the game system. It acts as the main interface for the user to interact with the game’s rules in creating experiences. Besides that, it also takes on the role of game system, for example connecting game hardware as part of the user’s controllers. Besides that, the interaction between user and game system through run time behavior is a function of the game dynamic, which acts with players’ inputs and others’ outputs over time. Game aesthetics is an element that can generate emotional responses among users when they interact with the system. In persuading learners, emotion is an important element in evaluating players’ experiences via their attention. Bogost (2007) stated that the four main elements in Serious Games, emotion and sobriety, consequences and demand for consideration, severity and foreboding, and intellectualism

and profundity are important aspects for players to engage by in after playing the games. Another work by Hesther (2010) identified three techniques for evaluating users’ emotions when playing games. These are self-assessment mannequin, emoticons and affective grid for measuring emotions. Based on this, attention is an important element in creating learners’ emotions while playing games. It is useful to connect the role of game mechanics with player behavior when it is an important element in supporting learner’s behavior (Hunicke et.al 2004). Behaviorism is one of the pedagogical theories about learner behavior in a learning environment. In this theory, learning occurs through conditioning via the game element, and the player gets rewards based on the stimuli (Schunk, 2012). 2.2 Game Rhetoric Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Additional works by Jarvinen (2008) have concluded that the concept of game rhetoric is derived from communication theories and uses a semiotic element to engage with players. Text, animation, sound effect, image, material props are examples of semiotics. The 1,2,3 countdown at the beginning of the Mario Kart DS game is one example of the semiotic approach in games. Besides that, Zookeeper games developed by Success Corp (2003) have embedded the semiotic approach through communicating player progress and simulating animals’ emotional reactions in order to make the game more attractive. In actualizing the objectives of this paper, we have developed the game rhetoric model for persuasive games which was proposed by Sundness (2008) to be our model component. The model has been divided into three categories to represent each of the elements in persuasion via game rhetoric: legitimization, authenticity and identification. Figure 2 indicates the game rhetoric model of persuasive games which was proposed by Sundness (2008).

Fig. 2. Game rhetoric model for persuasive games

We derive three main important elements from the Sundness’s model (2008) consisting of rules, player roles and the game world, as the core elements for the game rhetoric in our proposed model. AMERICAN ARMY is a prime example of a persuasive game which embeds rules, player roles and game world concepts (figure 3). Game Rhetoric has been proposed as the main element in interaction design in this article because of the effectiveness of the rhetorical element in expressing the concept of persuasion through exemplification in the learning environment (Bogost, 2007). We categorized game rhetoric into three types of categories, visual rhetoric (adver-

tisements, photograph, illusion), procedural rhetoric (rules based representation and interaction) and digital rhetoric (text and image), as shown in figure 4.

Fig. 3. AMERICA’S ARMY Persuasive Games (Gamespot, 2002)

Rhetoric

Visual rhetoric

Aesthethics

Legimitization

Procedural Rhetoric

Representation

Identification

Digital Rhetoric

Abstraction

Authentication

Fig. 4. Rhetoric Perspectives

Creating new forms in terms of advertisements or photographs is a useful lesson in visual rhetoric, which can generate users’ illusions. In this study, we have mapped visual rhetoric in the context of aesthetics, the function of which is to capture learner emotion through the rules of the game system. As a result, rule based representation and interaction are examples of procedural rhetoric involving the reasoning for a user to perform an action while playing a game. Presenting abstractions of the computer application such as game warnings when the learner does not follow the game rules is an example of digital rhetoric applications which enable to the learner to experience greater authenticity and ownership. In order to enhance the current game rhetoric model, we implemented three mediums of interaction design: cognitive, emotional and social, to create persuasion in the game.

3.

Interaction Design: Cognition into Persuasion

3.1 The Persuasive Element in Games As defined by Bogost (2007), a serious game must contain four elements. Firstly, it must have the emotion and sobriety element to attract player attention. This is followed by consequence and the demand for consideration through the steps or actions in the game environment. Severity and foreboding are the third elements in SG, which invoke the learner’s cognition to perform the next action. The last element in SG is how effectively the game will generate knowledge for user. Bogost strongly supports the persuasion element in serious games, and this follows Visch (2003) who defined persuasive games by their effects on users’ experiences and behavior. “Persuasive games design aiming to create a user experienced game World to change the user behavior in the real world” (Visch, 2003) Persuasion can generate both argumentation and information to change individuals’ beliefs, attitudes and behaviors and persuasions. It can also be defined as “human communication designed to influence the autonomous judgments an action of others” (Visch, 2013). Based on this, a persuasive game is one example of a serious game through the representation of interaction by using procedural rhetoric effectively (Bogost, 2007). Designing a SG must align with the cognitive issues. This is because a SG must engage with pedagogy in generating learning experiences. Regarding this issue, Van (2011) proposed a successful SG according to the cognitive aspect; where knowledge acquisition and construction is measured based on three aspects: learning, cognitive load and enjoyment factors. Van (2011) discovered two types of learning that are embedded in SG design. They are deep learning and surface learning. The function of deep learning is to construct the features of the mental model and to prove the structure of knowledge assessment. Surface learning, combines two types of knowledge: declarative and procedural knowledge in constructing the attributes of the mental model of. Based on Van’s (2011) results cognition is an important element that instructs the SG to generate a persuasive learning environment. 3.2 From Interaction into Persuasion Cognition is the psychological result of perception and learning which is affected by emotions through mental operations. In order to persuade attention as a persuasive element, we identified the relationship between interaction design and persuasion in generating the attention element for the learning environment, as presented in figure 5.

Fig. 5. Cognitive Process

Based on figure 5, the process of interaction design involves the cognitive process to achieve the persuasion element. In this process, knowledge is provided about the user’s actions and expectations in carrying out a hospital priority task. Through the cognitive process, several learner attitudes or behaviors can be generated, as presented in figure 5. Many attributes can generate learner attention, such as color, space, and multimedia elements as a representation of visual rhetoric. The attention element introduced by the Keller ARCS Model has been used in this study to support the proposed model. Kakabadse (2003) presented the mental model as a cognitive style in the taxonomies of knowledge management while Yusoff et.al (2013) identified the relationships among mental models in constructing learning engagement through three attributes: cognitive engagement, interactivity, and multimedia learning, to enhance a learner’s engagement through knowledge visualization.

4

Proposed Model

This article proposes the interaction design model for persuasive learning which is derived from the current game rhetoric model of Sundness (2008). We overcame the limitations of the model by adding the learning context integrated with the interaction design paradigm to control learner’s attention while playing the game. Figure 6 presents the interaction design model of persuasive learning in SG.

Fig.6. Interaction Design Model of Persuasive Learning in Serious Game

The proposed model consists of two phases: learning environment and interaction design, to construct the persuasive learning environment. 4.1.1

Learner Characteristics.

For learner characteristics, we have adopted four elements from Drachsler (2000), who defined the characteristics of the learner according to four categories, personal, academic, social/emotional, and cognitive. Demographic issues such as age, gender, level of maturity, and the skills of the learner are the criteria for the personal element. Prior knowledge, educational level and type are the specific criteria for the academic element. Learner’s feelings or mood are the social or emotional aspects of a learner’s characteristics. The cognitive element is an important aspect of learner characteristics. As Guilford (1967) stated human intellectual abilities can be divided according to three main dimensions: operations, content and products, in generating learner cognition. In designing the model, we have chosen visual, auditory and kinesthetic as the learning styles required to fulfill learners’ requirements through the game environment. 4.1.2

Pedagogy

We have identified six paradigms of learning theories and models in constructing the pedagogical elements of the learning theory, such as behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, design-based, humanism, and 21st Century Skills (Learning Theories and

Models, 2005). Learning theory must support learner requirements to influence the learning process. Significantly, to support the concept of persuasion, we used humanistic theory to construct the attention element in the model. We followed the Attention criteria from the ARCS Motivation model by Keller (2000) in evaluating learner’s attention to construct the persuasive element. These criteria are perceptual arousal (PA), Inquiry Arousal (IA) and Variability (V) to achieve persuasion. 4.1.3

Context

According to Dias (2005), context is the set of circumstances that are relevant for the learner to generate knowledge when referring to the content. The graphic element is content for attracting players’ attention to engage with the game environment. Text, symbols, image, animation, sound, music and touch are a combination of graphic elements which are utilized to provide emotional experiences through challenges in the games. As a result, the interaction between content and context will generate users’ knowledge. 4.2 Interaction Design We have derived three elements of interaction design from Rogers’ et.al (2011) consisting of emotion, cognition and social interaction as agents of interaction design. We adapted the attention element from the Keller ARCS Model in order to construct the attention in persuasion element. The Game Rhetoric element was also integrated in the proposed model to produce the persuasive learning environment. Three elements of persuasion which were derived from Aristotle consisting of pathos (emotional effects), ethos (moral character) and logos (generate reasoning) were generated through the interaction design paradigm; emotion, cognition and social interaction. Table 1 explains the relationship between attributes in the proposed model.

Table 1. Explanation of proposed model

Persuasion through Attention Elements Perceptual Arousal (PA) What can I do to capture learner interest and affect their emotions?

Inquiry Arousal How I can stimulate attitude through interaction between game and learners?

Variability How I can use a variety of tactics to maintain attention?

Interaction Design Emotion Learners feeling confident, secure, comfortable and curious are the features that fall within the emotional category as indicators of learning engagement. (Wang et.al 2005) Cognition Students can generate their own self regulated learning, construct their own knowledge, and take ownership of their learning to be stored in mental models for knowledge storage. (Wang et.al 2005). Social External environment; such as sharing resources with others through collaborative learning and acceptance (Wang et.al 2005). Moral character in games will provides learners the opportunity to interact with other’ players in achieving learning outcomes

Game Rhetoric Elements Legitimization The rules in games have settings to generate user’s interest using aesthetic elements such as graphics, sound, text, narration to represent the games. Authentication The adaptive concept in games which influences the game flow, outcomes and feedback from games can generate learning outcomes after learners interact with the game system. Identification Multiplayer games will develop social interaction among groups which can create intense and passionate involvement in learners’ skills.

5 Discussion This article enhances the design of the interaction design model to strengthen the current model through the use of game rhetoric. In the proposed model, the game rhetoric element is identified as the element generating the persuasive learning environment in Serious Games. We have mapped the concept of game rhetoric onto persuasion to support learner attention. The proposed model provides a strong guideline

for developing persuasive games based on the rhetorical element integrated with the attention element in the interaction design concept, Perceptual Arousal (emotional), Inquiry Arousal (cognitive) and Variability (social interaction). As a result in the proposed model, visual rhetoric can generate learners’ emotions, procedural rhetoric will affect learners’ cognition and digital rhetoric will create social interaction among learners in multiplayer games. Significantly, game rhetoric is a suitable concept to be used in implementing persuasive learning through the Serious Game environment.

6

Conclusion

The proposed interaction design model of persuasive learning based on game rhetoric provides new guidelines for researchers to develop real prototypes. The concept of game rhetoric has been proposed as a means to persuade players through the three core elements of persuasion: pathos, ethos and logos, to construct learner attention. In further research we want to proceed to building serious game prototypes based on the proposed model by incorporating the concept of learner’ attention in history education.

Acknowledgement We would like to thank University of Malaya Research Grant (UMRG) for sponsoring this project under (HNE-004), Usability of Serious Game Application for History Education

References 1. Bakri, A., Zakaria, N.H.,Muhamad Zainuldin, S.N., Abu Safia, A.H.(2014) A Conceptual Model of Al_Furqan Courseware using Persuasive System Design for Early Learning Childhood. 2014 8th Malaysian Software Engineering Conferences (MySEC), 336-34. Doi.10.1109/MySec.2014.6986040 2. Bogost, I. (2007): Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. MIT Press, Cambridge. 3. Carroll, John M. (2014): Human Computer Interaction - brief intro. In: Soegaard, Mads and Dam, Rikke Friis (eds.). "The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed." 4. Daud, N. A., Sahari@Ashaari, N., & Muda, Z. (2013). An Initial Model of Persuasive Design in Web based Learning Environment. Procedia Technology, 11(Iceei), 895–902. doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.273 5. Dunwell, I., de Freitas, S., Jarvis, S. (2011) Four-dimensional consideration of feedback in serious games. In Digital Games and Learning, de Freitas, S. and Maharg, P., Eds., Continuum Publishing: 42-62. 6. Drachsler, H., & Kirschner, P. A. (n.d.). Learner Characteristics, Centre for Learning Science and Technology, Open University of Netherlands. 7. Fogg, B. (2003) Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufman Publishers, CA.

8. Guilford, J.P., (1967) The Nature of Human Intelligence, New York: Mc Graw-Hill, Pp. xii~538 9. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M, and Zubek, R., MDA, A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. In Proceedings of the Challenges in Game AI Workshop, Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI ‘04) (San Jose, California) AAAI Press, 2004 10. Heather D., Charlotte W., (2010): User Experience Design for Inexperienced Gamers:GAP- Game Approachability Principles, Evaluating User Experience in Games, Human Computer Interaction Series, Springer – Verlag, London. 11. Jarvinen , A., (2008), Univesity of Tampere, Finland. Culture, M. (n.d.). Games without Frontiers (Vol. 7). 12. N.K. Kakabadse, A.Kakabadse, A.Kouzmin, “Reviewing the knowledge management literature : towards a taxanomy”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.7, 2003, Iss:4 pp.75-91 13. America’s Army Operation Reviews. (2002) Retrieved from http://www.gamespot.com. 14. Paper, S., & Paiva, A. (2008). Learning to Interact : Connecting Perception with Action in Virtual Environments, (Aamas), 1257–1260. 15. R. Bernhaupt (ed.), (2010) Evaluating User Experience in Games, Human-Computer Interaction Series, Springer-Verlag London. 16. Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Preece, J., (2011). Interaction Design: Beyond Human Computer Interaction, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 17. Schunk, Dale H.,(2012: Learning Theories : An Educational perspective, Sixth Edition, Pearson, 18. Sundnes, A. (2008). The Rhetoric of Persuasive Games Freedom and Discipline in America ’ s Army, 70–91. 19. Sorden, Stephen D (2005). "A cognitive approach to instructional design for multimedia learning." Informing Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 8 : 263-279 20. Van Dijk, V., Van der Spek, E.D., Van Oostendorp, H. & Erkens, G. Serious games versus tradition instruction; learning, enjoyment and cognitive load.Experiments in serious game design a cognitive approach. SIKS Dessertataion Series No.2011-36 21. Visch, V., Vegt, N., Anderiesen, H., & Kooij, K. Van Der. (n.d.). (2013), Persuasive Game Design : A model and its. CHI International Conference 22. Wang,M., and Kang , M.,(2006) “Cybergogy for engaged learning: A framework for creating learner engagement through information and communication technology.In D.Hung and M.S Khine (Eds.), Engaged learning with emerging technologies (pp. 225-253). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. 23. Yusoff, Z., Katmon, S. A., Ahmad, M. N., & Miswan, S. H. M. (2013). Visual Representation: Enhancing Students’ Learning Engagement through Knowledge Visualization. 2013 International Conference on Informatics and Creative Multimedia, 242–247. doi:10.1109/ICICM.2013.48 24. Zulkifli, A. N., Noor, N. M., Bakar, J. A. A., Mat, R. C., & Ahmad, M. (2013). A Conceptual Model of Interactive Persuasive Learning System for Elderly to Encourage ComputerBased Learning Process. 2013 International Conference on Informatics and Creative Multimedia, 7–12. doi:10.1109/ICICM.2013.10 25. Success Corporation, Japanese Video Game and Online Game. (2003) Retrieved from http://www.success-corp.co.jp/ 26. Summaries of Learning Theories and Models. (2005) Retrieved from http://www.learningtheories.com/