This article was downloaded by: [91.154.117.19] On: 02 August 2015, At: 23:47 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
European Journal of Engineering Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20
An overview of game-based learning in building services engineering education a
Kari Alanne a
Department of Energy Technology, Aalto University, PO Box 14100, Espoo, 00076 Aalto, Finland Published online: 16 Jun 2015.
Click for updates To cite this article: Kari Alanne (2015): An overview of game-based learning in building services engineering education, European Journal of Engineering Education, DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2015.1056097 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1056097
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
European Journal of Engineering Education, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1056097
REVIEW
An overview of game-based learning in building services engineering education Kari Alanne∗
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
Department of Energy Technology, Aalto University, PO Box 14100, Espoo, 00076 Aalto, Finland (Received 4 October 2013; accepted 13 April 2015) To ensure proper competence development and short graduation times for engineering students, it is essential that the study motivation is encouraged by new learning methods. In game-based learning, the learner’s engagement is increased and learning is made meaningful by applying game-like features such as competition and rewarding through virtual promotions or achievement badges. In this paper, the state of the art of game-based learning in building services engineering education at university level is reviewed and discussed. A systematic literature review indicates that educational games have been reported in the field of related disciplines, such as mechanical and civil engineering. The development of systemlevel educational games that realistically simulate work life in building services engineering is still in its infancy. Novel rewarding practices and more comprehensive approaches entailing the state-of-theart information tools such as building information modelling, geographic information systems, building management systems and augmented reality are needed in the future. Keywords: game-based learning; gamification; building services engineering
1.
Introduction
Buildings account for approximately 40% of the total energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (European Parliament and Council 2010). The general aim of building services technology is to produce good indoor environment for buildings in an energy-efficient manner. Building services engineering focuses on the design, installation, operation, and monitoring mechanical and electrical systems in buildings. The key systems are heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems, water systems, drainage and plumbing, lighting, automation, security and alarm systems. Building services engineers work in close collaboration with architects, wherefore the field of science has been sometimes counted as a part of architectural engineering. Moreover, construction processes, energy auditing and legislation are closely related to building services technology (Chadderton 2000). The areas of building service engineering and related factors in the greater context of operational environment are illustrated in Figure 1. From the viewpoint of learning, it is necessary for building services engineers to become familiar with numerous systems and their compatibility and interoperability as a whole system. Basic theories such as mechanics and thermodynamics appear invariable over time, but details such as information technologies and building codes experience development, which is both *Email:
[email protected] © 2015 SEFI
2
K. Alanne
Design
Life-cycle data
Heating
Legislation
Ventilation
Geographic environment
Air-Conditioning Water supply and sewage
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
Lighting Construction project
Building automation
Energy auditing & certification
Security and alarm Building services Climatic environment Figure 1.
Economic environment
The framework of building services engineering.
rapid and continuous. For example, the Heating, Plumbing and Air-Conditioning (HEPAC) and Energy Management sector (D) in the National Building Code of Finland has been changed remarkably during only a few years. Therefore, an ability to search for up-to-date information is essential for building services engineering students. One of the greatest future challenges of higher education is to make the competence of graduating students to better accommodate the needs of the labour market (Ministry of Education and Culture 2012). Concurrently, the essence of knowledge is changing rapidly, emphasising the learners’ abilities in creativity, problem-solving and information management (Mälkki, Alanne, and Hirsto 2012). From the learner’s perspective, learning is increasingly taking place outside of the lecture halls, whereas the student’s own responsibility for his/her own study path propagates. A key problem is how to motivate students and to facilitate their career development, keeping learning results good and graduation times short. Today’s students have grown up in the world of competition. Being totally surrounded by gadgets and games, modern students are potentially motivated to learn through them and, if possible, to administer their individual study paths. A good example of the present technology is Apple’s i-Device range, particularly the iPad (Falloon 2013). The concept gamification has been traditionally defined as the use of gaming elements in nongaming systems (e.g. Deterding et al. 2011). The history of gamification dates back to 1980s, when the researchers observed the young generation’s engagement and motivation into video games (Domínguez et al. 2013). In the educational settings, gamification can be referred to as game-based learning, where the learner’s engagement and intrinsic motivation are increased and learning is made meaningful by implementing game-like features such as competition and rewarding through virtual promotions or achievement badges. Game-based learning has been recognised and implemented in several fields and levels of education from pre-schooling (Simões, Redondo, and Fernández Vilas 2013) to universities
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
European Journal of Engineering Education
3
(Kapp 2012). Computer gaming has been identified as a promising trend also in the engineering education (e.g. Morsi and Jackson 2007; Ross, Fitzgerald, and Rhodes 2014). Game-based learning in the field of energy engineering has been discussed and acknowledged, for example, by Klemeš et al. (2013). The applications are scarce, however, because the extensive implementation of serious games in engineering is restrained by the difficulty to indicate better effectiveness of learning than in the case of traditional teaching methods (Hauge, Pourabdollahian, and Riedel 2012). In the work of Deshpande and Huang (2011), an extensive review is presented concerning the simulation-based games for engineering education, covering the time span from the 1970s to 2006. The review does not dedicate much to the discussion on the assessment of learning, motivation and rewarding. Many of the applications could not be identified as games at all, since they lack competitive elements such as winning and losing or the reward the player receives. This paper reviews the implementations of game-based learning related to building services engineering education. Particularly, the assessment of learning and rewarding methods and practices and their role in increasing the study motivation in the game-based learning applications are surveyed. Furthermore, the potential of information tools such as building information modelling (BIM) and geographic information systems (GIS) in the future development of more comprehensive approaches for the above application is discussed.
2.
Research methods
The present approach adopts the principles of a systematic literature review that enables the identification, evaluation and interpretation of accessible publications related to the given research questions (Kitchenham 2004). First, systematic reviews related to game-based learning in engineering education were identified to establish the need for a new review. This search converged into the work of Deshpande and Huang (2011), who had examined the applications of simulation games in the framework of civil, electrical, computer, chemical, mechanical, industrial and environmental engineering, that is, the areas of engineering that are closely linked to building services. Second, an extended literature search was conducted to find out more recent references. The data search was based on the international online scientific databases ScienceDirect, Scirus, CiteSeerX, IEEE XPLORE, Google Scholar and the publishers’ own databases. The general format of the data search protocol was ‘engineering education AND game-based learning OR gamification’. Third, 14 references were selected as primary studies for further analysis. When selecting these references, the following criteria were applied: (1) The game-based learning approach should concern the discipline ‘building services engineering’ directly. (2) The assessment of learning, motivation factors and rewarding the player’s performance should be addressed. (3) Articles published in scientific journals were preferred. The references were rigorously explored, and the findings were gathered into a spreadsheet in accordance with the year of publication and the specific research questions: that is, the topic and the contents of the game, the assessment of learning and the approach of rewarding the performance. The key motivation factors were listed following the wording used by the original reference. The conclusions on the learners’ experiences on game-based learning were formulated at the author’s own discretion.
4
3.
K. Alanne
Results and discussion
This section is dedicated to communicating the results of the literature review and discussing the implementation of the game-based learning in building services engineering education. The results are presented as a qualitative synthesis.
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
3.1.
Summary of the literature review
Deshpande and Huang (2011) emphasised the significance of developing applications with comprehensive functionality dealing with all the topics of the subject under consideration. This would provide the learners with a holistic understanding of the subject being learnt and its interrelation with real world and thus a strong transferability of knowledge to industrial needs. They also concluded that simulation games would change the learner’s role more active than in traditional learning, and attract more student attention. Moreover, it was stated that simulation games encouraged the learners to spend more time on the analysis of the topic to be learned. The game applications reviewed by Deshpande and Huang (2011) are summarised in Table 1. The results indicate that industrial engineering with 16 references (published in 1995–2006) is the most popular area of engineering, where simulation games have been applied. Earlier, gamification has been mentioned in the context of civil (Au and Parti 1969) and computer engineering (Gyllenskog 1976). Mechanical and electrical engineering are close to building services engineering. Nine publications in total considered simulation games within these areas, beginning from the 1990s. These approaches focused on single processes, such as gas turbine systems (Reed and Afjeh 1998) or fundamentals, such as system dynamics (Mandal, Wong, and Love 2000), but none of them modelled whole systems such as the community’s energy delivery Table 1. (2011).
Summary of simulation games in engineering education (1969–2006) according to Deshpande and Huang
Area of engineering Civil engineering
Electrical engineering Computer engineering
Chemical engineering Mechanical engineering
Industrial engineering Environmental engineering
Topics taught through simulation games
Number of references
Time range
• Construction management, project planning and control, decisionmaking, uncertainty, environmental variables and financial restraints • Digital signal processing • Power Electronics • Digital logic • Computer security • Protocols • Software engineering • Information systems • Artificial intelligence • Reaction kinetics • Reactor design • Engineering graphics • Engineering mechanics • Thermodynamics • System dynamics • Enterprise resource planning • Production planning and control • Supply chain management • Social acceptability of hazardous dumping • Water quality management • Sustainable development • Effects of food consumption
8
1969–2004
2
2000–2002
10
1976–2005
2
1995–2006
7
1995–2005
16
1995–2006
5
1991–2005
European Journal of Engineering Education Table 2.
Selected primary studies by data source.
Data source Deshpande and Huang (2011)
ScienceDirect CiteSeerX Other sources
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
5
Selected references Martin (2000)Leemkuil et al. (2003)Aggarwal et al. (2004)Hirose, Sugiura, and Shimomoto (2004)Scott, Mawdesley, and Al-Jibouri (2004)Philpot et al. (2005)Irvine and Thompson (2003)Lee, Lau, and Ning (2006) Coller and Scott (2009)Hainey et al. (2011)Pourabdollahian, Taisch, and Kerga (2012) Ebner and Holzinger (2007) Navarro and van der Hoek (2004)Baker, Navarro, and van der Hoek (2005)
network. System-level approaches in building services engineering education were not found. For example, there were no games in the reviewed literature dealing with heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems. Table 2 lists the references (14 hits) selected for the further analysis. The related findings are summarised in Table 3. The idea of ‘role-playing’ has been adapted to some extent in all the reviewed experiences of game-based learning. The players contribute to the game in certain roles (e.g. project manager), and they also may change their roles (e.g. Hainey et al. 2011). The competence development is not commonly rewarded as a promotion to a role representing higher position in the virtual company’s hierarchy, however. Hainey et al. (2011) suggest that the effectiveness of game-based learning can be increased through role-playing elements and it is, a bit surprisingly, more eagerly accepted among the engineering students at the level of higher education than those of the college level. To evaluate the suitability of game-based learning for engineering education, the efficiency of game-based learning and its implications in learning and motivation is commonly surveyed through a pre-/post-test analysis, where the learners’ knowledge and motivation before and after the learning situation are measured (Carvalho 2012). As seen in Table 3, team playing, visualisation, challenge and fun have been identified as key motivators. It can be also perceived that the study motivation increases when the learning takes place everywhere (e.g. Lee, Lau, and Ning 2006; Ebner and Holzinger 2007). When games have been traditionally played in computer classes, the future learning environment is to follow the learner’s physical location rather than vice versa. The concepts ubiquitous learning (U-learning) or mobile learning (M-learning) and the corresponding learning environment (ubiquitous learning environment) can be defined as learning processes that are present everywhere, and in which the learners are totally immersed, even without being aware of learning. The source data are always available, embedded in surrounding objects, and the learning material and guidance are reachable through mobile technologies (Jones and Jo 2004). Interaction between the teacher and the other learners has been perceived one of the key motivation factors in recent game-based learning experiences (e.g. Lee, Lau, and Ning 2006; Leemkuil et al. 2003). The problem of conventional e-learning environments, such as interactive learning platforms (e.g. Moodle, Blackboard, etc.) or web-based simulations, is yet that the learners (players) do not really learn to solve problems in real-life collaboration with the client (e.g. the building owner), the instructor (the teacher) and the other learners (team members in collaborative problems) (Hwang et al. 2009). Therefore, the related educational games should allow the communication between both the humans and the information systems. Furthermore, artificial intelligence such as knowledge-based systems could be implemented, particularly for feedback and evaluation (Peredo et al. 2011).
6
Table 3. Summary of reviewed games in engineering education (2000–2013, sorted in accordance with the year of publication). Motivation factorsa
Martin (2000)
• MIS/ISPM – information systems (project) manager • Computer engineering
• The players manage one or more information systems individually or in teams
• The progress is measured with tokens and position markers (‘board game’) and rewarded by artefacts, such as certificates or money
• Interactivity • Dynamism • Graphical representation of the concepts
Irvine and Thompson (2003)
• Computer security game • Computer engineering
• The player constructs computer networks and chooses security policies against various types of attackers
• The player’s success is evaluated in terms of enterprise value (monetary) and the level of happiness of virtual users
Leemkuil et al. (2003)
• KM QUEST – knowledge management game • Computer engineering
• As a knowledge manager, the player’s task is to improve a virtual company’s ‘knowledge household’
Navarro and van der Hoek (2004)
• A game for software engineering education (SIMSE) • Computer engineering
• As a project manager, the player manages a team of employees to complete a given software engineering project • Providing training in managing software engineering projects
• The score depends on the market share, profit and the customer satisfaction index • No feedback is provided during the game • Communication with virtual employees through pop-up bubbles over their heads. The final performance is evaluated in terms of either ‘success’ or ‘failure’
• Possibility to increase the understanding of both the attacker’s and the security company’s perspective to the computer security • Entertainment • Possibility to play in teams • Complexity • Communication (‘workspace awareness’) • Visual representation of a software engineering process
Further conclusions • The game is available as both a board game and a computer game. The computerised version appears as a better educational tool, but provides less social interaction between the players • Only single-player mode was presented • Systemic evaluation of learning was not performed • Good introduction with instructions and a debriefing discussion after the game are necessary for this type of a game • The work was reported as ongoing. Systemic evaluation of learning was not performed
(Continued).
K. Alanne
Key contents of the game
Reference
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
Evaluation, score calculation and rewarding
Name and topic of the game
Continued
Aggarwal et al. (2004)
• Simulation game for peach retail ordering systems • Industrial engineering
Hirose, Sugiura, and Shimomoto (2004)
• Industrial Waste Game • Environmental engineering
Scott, Mawdesley, and Al-Jibouri (2004)
• Contract management simulation game • Civil engineering
Baker, Navarro, and van der Hoek (2005)
• A card game to simulate the software engineering process • Computer engineering
• Two players lead an identical project as a project manager
Philpot et al. (2005)
• The Centroids Game • The Moment of Inertia Game • Mechanical engineering
• The learners identify proper calculation of assumptions and procedures (a round of questions)
• As a retailer, the player satisfies the consumer demand of peaches in scenarios at variable levels of difficulty • Recognising the uncertainty of product delivery systems • Operating and monitoring a refining plant under given funding. Penalty charges are paid for illegal dumping • Understanding the dilemma between the individual interest and social costs of hazardous dumping • The student oversees a hypothetical construction project in the role of an architect (contract administrator) • Increase in awareness of professional responsibility
• Consumer–retailer interaction has been built in the game • The score of the game is a bank balance that the player tries to maximise
• Fun • Challenge • Realism
• The simulation tries to model human (consumer) behaviour
• Remaining funding, the rate of illegal waste dumping and number of monitoring activities are counted • Discussion with the facilitator after the game is a part of the feedback process
• Representation of success with monetary values • In-built debriefing after the game
• The game revealed the moral of the players by providing them with an opportunity to individual profits through illegal dumping
• Game controllers communicate with the players and proceed to consequential scenarios to be resolved • The team with the highest score is revealed to the others • The player who completes the project first will be the winner • Immediate feedback through ‘cards’ for both successes and failures
• Possibility to develop team working skills • Clear identification of student interaction with the system
• The game was efficient in helping the students to understand the contractual process • Systemic evaluation of learning was not performed
• Immediate feedback for each question • Points are awarded for correct answers
• Fun, visualisation and • The learners felt the simplicity game enjoyable and • Consequences of both useful right choices and errors • The learning result was can be detected in a not discussed more ‘drastic’ way than in lectures • Easy way to learn • The learners per• Visualisation ceived the game as • Possibility to easily idenvery effective way tify what is known and of learning what is not known • Sufficient repetition • Fun
7
(Continued).
European Journal of Engineering Education
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
Table 3.
Table 3. Continued Evaluation, score calculation and rewarding
Motivation factorsa
Further conclusions • Student motivation increased, which was shown through a questionnaire • An integrated learning environment will help the student in achieving the desired learning outcomes • At least an equal learning result as with the traditional method • An incidental learning process (serendipity) occurred • The game resulted in higher engagement among learners and deeper learning • A computer game may be as effective as role-playing and more effective than paper-based case studies. • Better suitable and accepted in terms of higher education than at college level • The game resulted in higher engagement among learners
Lee, Lau, and Ning (2006)
• SimEnterprise • Industrial engineering
• As an account executive, the student oversees business activities, prepares business strategies and tests their adaptability to changing market
• All transactions are recorded. The cash flow must be kept positive. Both financial and performance score are calculated throughout the game and aggregated to a total score, which is recorded for each student for further analysis
• Recognising and taking pride in self-achievement • Ability to learn everywhere • Peer-to-peer learning environment
Ebner and Holzinger (2007)
• Internal Force (IFM) • Civil engineering
• Theory of structures: Within a given time frame, the players select a correct structure to reach the next problem
• High score list • Nickname will be ‘published’, if the result is good enough
• Good design and content of the game • High score lists • Availability (everywhere) • Simplicity
Coller and Scott (2009)
• NIU-torcs • Mechanical engineering
• The winner is the player whose car is able to drive through the racetrack fastest
• The game provides tasks with realistic constraints
Hainey et al. (2011)
collection • Requirements and analysis game (RCAG) • Computer engineering
• A game-based course on numerical methods • Each player models a race car behaviour through programming • Managing and delivering a number of software development projects as a team consisting of project manager, systems analyst, systems designer or team leader
• Communication during the game between the players • Feedback of the player in the role of ‘project manager’
• • • •
Clear goal structure Narrative and dialog Ability to improvise Realism of scenario
Pourabdollahian, Taisch, and Kerga (2012)
• Set-Based Concurrent Engineering (SBCE) • Manufacturing education
• A team of players design four sub-systems for an airplane
• ‘Lean score’ for each team
• • • • •
Immersion Good player control Challenge Purpose Interest
Master
Note: MIS, management information system; ISPM, information systems project management. a The factors are presented that were perceived to have the greatest impact on the players’ motivation in the research reported by the corresponding reference.
K. Alanne
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
Key contents of the game
8
Reference
Name and topic of the game
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
European Journal of Engineering Education
9
Martin (2000) implies that game-based learning in other than computer environment may allow the learners better interaction. The moral of the players can be efficiently put into test through a suitable task setting (Hirose, Sugiura, and Shimomoto 2004). Moreover, incidental learning (serendipity) has been observed (Ebner and Holzinger 2007). Although learning is the first objective of game-based learning, elements such as rewarding, winning and losing in competition between the players should be also included. Here, scoring a player’s performance would start from the appropriate assessment of learning. In engineering games, the assessment has been ordinarily based on the feedback of the instructor, but it may also contain elements of peer- and self-assessment (e.g. Hainey et al. 2011) during and after the game. This approach is based on the idea that game-based learning takes place within the time frame of one lecture. In many of the applications listed in Table 3, the performance of a player (or a team consisting of multiple players) is assessed continuously (during the game) either by means of communication between the real persons (e.g. Hainey et al. 2011) or virtual (automatic) feedback (e.g. Baker, Navarro, and van der Hoek 2005). The assessment may also take place before and after the game (Leemkuil et al. 2003) or between separate sessions (Scott, Mawdesley, and Al-Jibouri 2004). Since many of the above games simulate industrial economy, the player’s performance is typically rewarded in terms of virtual money (e.g. Lee, Lau, and Ning 2006). For instance, these procedures may utilise the economic balances of a virtual company. The performance score may be also a position in a ranking list (e.g. Ebner and Holzinger 2007). In some cases, only the best performance is virtually ‘published’ (e.g. Scott, Mawdesley, and Al-Jibouri 2004), the player’s nickname is recorded on a ‘wall of fame’ (Ebner and Holzinger 2007) or the rewarding just takes place in terms of credit points.
3.2.
Discussion on game-based learning in building service engineering education
Building services engineering students have traditionally learned to use computer-aided design (CAD) and whole-building simulation tools, which are the key tools in working life. Building automation systems have developed quickly in the past years. Through them, the operational status of building services systems can be made visible. The real-time data from building management systems (BMSs), such as biases in energy demand, fault diagnostic reports, and historical data on temperatures and flow rates, still need to be interpreted by humans. In this context, applications for game-based learning have not been reported so far. The latest developments of BIM (Wang et al. 2012) and GIS (Irizarry, Karan, and Jalaei 2013) also provide with several potential approaches for game-based learning in building services engineering education. The significance of BIM is increasing, since all the data on a building are principally available provided that there is an application with an ability to interact with the BIM system (Eastman et al. 2011). The use of GIS would extend the perspective from the built environment to geographic data, basically all the data that are potentially printed on maps, supplemented by statistical analysis and computer technology (Goodchild 2009). In the recently published literature, the applications of GIS are many, but sparse in the context of game-based learning. However, Poplin (2012) mentions GIS as a tool in ‘playful’ urban planning, and Washington-Ottombre et al. (2010) find GIS useful in a role-play game studying complex socio-ecological systems. In the educational settings, the implementation of the above systems in game-based learning is still in its infancy. Instead, the application of BIM has been mentioned, for example, by Horne and Thompson (2008) and by Yan, Culp, and Graf (2011), who suggested a BIM game to integrate building models in terms of architectural visualisation. Moreover, they conceptualise a
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
10
K. Alanne
framework for integrating BIM and games in extended platforms, such as equipment simulation and visualisation, collision detection, materials and lighting. An example of the contents of a game-making use of GIS in building service engineering would be evaluating the accessibility of a building site to renewable energy resources (AngelisDimakis et al. 2011). Global positioning system (GPS) combined with the digital imagery of the terrain and the soil would be useful in producing appropriate information for the design of a ground-source heat pump or a district heating system. Making use of local climatic data, the suitability of a micro-wind power plant for a certain building would be assessed from the viewpoint of both wind conditions and social acceptability. As a very practical example of how the data from the Building Energy Management System (BEMS) could be implemented in game-based learning might be an anomaly in the temperature control of supply water in a hydronic heating system. Assume the fault diagnostics indicates that on the basis of history data, the temperature of a building zone has been constantly too low. The learner’s first task would be to give reasons and suggest improvements for the problem. Here, the learner would have the full access to see the current status of the control curve and also to the temperature measurements throughout the water circulation. At a more advanced level, he/she might also be given rights to adjust the control curve. The learner first should have to perceive that the temperature has been too low at all the outdoor temperatures. Since the control curve is a function of outdoor temperatures, the learner should be able to deduce that the set-point temperature has remained too low down the line. A suggested measure to improve the situation would then be a parallel move of the control curve (line) upwards (towards a higher set-point temperature). At a more advanced level (where adjusting the control curve might be enabled), the learner should make the move and to monitor the system behaviour afterwards to ensure that the diagnosis is correct and the measured temperatures return to normal. Marinagi, Skourlas, and Belsis (2013) have recently reviewed the utilisation of computing devices and technologies in the context of ubiquitous learning in higher education. They mention embedded computer devices and applications such as GPS, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags and sensors, pads, badges and wireless sensor networks useful. Among the more than 40 references surveyed by Marinagi, Skourlas, and Belsis (2013), there are no titles or applications directly related to the field of building services engineering anyway. In the implementation of ubiquitous game-based learning applications, an attractive approach would be augmented reality (AR), that is, the blending of real-world and digital information, such as overlaying images, audio, video or haptic sensations over a real-time environment. In general, the AR has been applied to several tasks so far, such as showing directions, providing information on unknown points of interest, revealing artworks that are not visible with bare eye and translating signs from a foreign to known language (Kipper and Rampolla 2012). Wang et al. (2012) propose a conceptual framework, where BIM would be integrated with an AR application to make construction activities or tasks to be visualised in real time. Their concept entails the idea of the AR including context awareness through tracking and sensing technologies such as RFID, laser pointing, sensors and motion tracking (see also: Marinagi, Skourlas, and Belsis 2013). AR applications suitable for engineering education have been introduced quite frequently in recent years. Kaufmann (2003) presents a collaborative, virtual learning application (Construct3D) for developing spatial skills in mathematics and geometry education both at high school and university level. Liarokapis et al. (2004) introduce an application, where a lecturer’s presentation can be enriched by viewing multimedia content in a tabletop AR environment. Chen and Wang (2008) present a tangible AR learning environment for design skills. Phan and Choo (2010) apply the AR to ‘superimpose virtual graphics of traditional buildings in a real outdoor scene’ in the context of fire protection. In their example, the system is considered useful for firemen, but also for providing educational material for architects, archaeologists and engineers.
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
European Journal of Engineering Education
11
Behzadan and Kamat (2013) capture the problem of the lack of engagement and interaction with the learning environment by creating a pedagogical AR tool that allows the students to interact with the objects embedded in video scenes, and to visually attach location-aware instructional materials to them. The approach is especially experienced useful for visual learners and team workers. Learning engineering subjects is labelled by their theoretical nature and strong relation with problem-solving (Baillie and Fitzgerald 2000). When a building services engineering student graduates, some two years is required to learn to acquire the practices of the new work place. During that time, a new employee is unproductive from the viewpoint of the employer. Practical experiences have shown that working during the studies will postpone the graduation time. Moreover, internships are often hard to get during economically difficult times. This is not a desirable situation for any of the stakeholders. Project-based learning, that is, acquiring theory and practice through real-life problems offered by the potential employers and solved by real-life tools, has been used as a learning method to capturing the above challenges. In building services engineering, the player might acquire roles such as a design engineer, an energy auditor, a builder, a researcher or an authority (Chadderton 2000). In this context, game-based learning would proceed through structured decision-making and character development during the study path planned in advance by the learner in collaboration with his or her supervisor. The potential employer’s assessment and feedback should be addressed all the time. The competition between players would be simulated and encouraged, for example, by assigning different learning tasks and virtual titles according to the level of knowledge, such as a ‘service technician’ or a ‘foreman’. To that end, it is crucial that the assessment is transparent and based on a concurrent interpretation of an agreed framework determining whether the learning outcomes have been reached. A recommended framework is the well-known Bloom taxonomy (Bloom et al. 1956), since it explicitly categorises the skill levels into knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. The framework is useful also, because it has been widely applied to indicate the learning outcomes in the Bologna process, which aims at harmonising the course workloads, objectives and outcomes so that courses passed in different European universities can be approved as an accomplishment in the student’s home university (Reinalda and Kulesza 2006). The competence development would take place in solving consequent learning assignments (problems), each representing certain learning outcomes at a given level of Bloom’s taxonomy. The learner’s performance would be assessed for each learning assignment and either rewarded or penalised. Having achieved a certain level of performance, the player would be ‘promoted’ to the next level with more challenging learning problems. For example, the learning outcomes could be set as follows: having completed the game, the learner is able to (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
know the basic concepts of building services engineering; comprehend the significance of indoor environment and climatic conditions; apply the key design principles; analyse the power and energy demands of a building and Evaluate the significance and premises of environmental awareness in the design of building service systems.
Relying on the above ideas on game-based learning through the whole study path, the performance should be also rewarded in concrete terms, as well. Academic Engineers and Architects in Finland (TEK) is a professional and labour market organisation, the task of which is to negotiate the collective agreements in salaries with the industry. For students and recent graduates, TEK
12
K. Alanne
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
establishes recommended salaries for each year on the basis of answers of yearly student surveys. In 2011, for example, 6000 students took part in the survey. As an outcome of the survey, the recommended salary for 2012 was established to vary between 1910 and 2440 Euros per month depending on the accumulated credit points (European credit transfer and accumulation system). The individual salary is commonly negotiated between the applicant and the employer on the basis of the above recommended salary, and the trainees’ previous work experience is taken into account. Throughout the study path, information would be collected in an individual competence profile on what kind of tasks the learner is able to perform. Correspondingly, an individual salary recommendation could be determined for each learner on the basis of the level of knowledge.
Building information modeling system (BIM)/ Building Management System (BMS) Digital representations of the physical and functional characteristics of facility/products
Geographic information system (GIS) Proposed solutions to the fault diagnostics
Digital representation and characterization of the location/position of facility/products
Mobile, ubiquitous computer “game” Guidance-counseling the learner, software development, operation and maintenance in collaboration with researchers, software engineers etc. Teachers
Identifies facilities/products in proximity Visualizes data through augmented reality Learner’s application
Sets up facility/product-related problems for the learner to be solved Evaluates the learner’s performance Sends solutions to BIM/BEMS Updates the learner’s competence profile
Competence profile Recommended salary (individual)
3rdparty feedback to both the learner and the teacher
Employers
Figure 2.
Calculates the new recommended salary
Individual database
Authorities
Schematic diagram of a game-based learning environment.
Trade/labor unions etc.
European Journal of Engineering Education
13
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
The competence profile could also provide the authorities with information on whether the person has some competence related to the requirements of building codes or other regulations (e.g. permission to grant an energy certificate for buildings). A schematic diagram of data flows in a learning environment discussed above is depicted in Figure 2. The key idea is that the learner is developing competence through the entire study path, making use of a ubiquitous and always present learner’s application, which may comprise several separate game programmes inter-communicating with each other. In general, the players would make use of a tablet, a smart phone or another portable mobile computer, where the learner’s application communicates with various information systems, such as BIM, GIS or BEMS. These systems would provide the player with both the information on the problems to be solved and the data required to solve them, such as fault diagnostics, history of energy consumption or product data. The learner’s application would support assessing the learner’s performance and maintain and update the individual competence database.
4.
Conclusions
In this paper, game-based learning in building services engineering education at university level was reviewed and discussed. The systematic literature review revealed that there is a lack of game-based learning applications in building services engineering. In the adjacent fields of engineering, such as mechanical and civil engineering, several game-based learning applications are found. Here, both the student learning and motivation are based on peer and supervisory feedback and rewarding the performance in virtual terms. Especially, it was perceived that both the motivation and the learning outcome can be increased by improving the way the game simulates real work life. Ubiquitous gaming, that is, a possibility to play a game everywhere, was perceived attractive from the viewpoint of student motivation. To enhance the students’ preparedness for the working life, educational games should be developed with an attempt to encourage the competence development through the entire study path, including real-life problems as learning assignments. The present study suggests that individual competence profiles for each player would be generated at the beginning of the studies, updated during the study path and recorded in the competence database for the potential employers to become aware of the candidates’ abilities to solve certain types of problems. Here, the reward would occur in concrete terms, for example, as an individually recommended salary. The above game-based learning approach could be implemented and deployed in the curriculum either as a single project course that runs through the whole study path or as a certain part of several individual courses. Here, all the game-based functions would be performed through a learning platform specifically designed for the purpose. The working life of a building services engineer is labelled by the co-operative use of several information systems and computational tools such as CAD tools and whole-building simulation tools. In the future, the significance of BIM, the GIS, BMS and AR in learning is expected to increase. Hence, the key technical challenge in designing the learning platform would be ensuring the interoperability of several data systems, the standardisation and compatibility of information systems, data security and personal identification.
References Aggarwal, D., S. E. Prussia, W. J. Florkowski, and D. Lynd. 2004. “Simulation Game for Peach Retail Ordering Systems.” Interact Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning 6 (1).
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
14
K. Alanne
Angelis-Dimakis, A., M. Biberacher, J. Dominguez, G. Fiorese, S. Gadocha, E. Gnansounou, G. Guariso, A. et al. 2011. “Methods and Tools to Evaluate the Availability of Renewable Energy Sources.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2): 1182–1200. Au, T., and E. Parti. 1969. “Building Construction Game – General Description.” Journal of Construct Division 95: 1–9. Baillie, C., and G. Fitzgerald. 2000. “Motivation and Attrition in Engineering Students.” European Journal of Engineering Education 25: 145–155. Baker, A., E. O. Navarro, and A. van der Hoek. 2005. “An Experimental Card Game for Teaching Software Engineering Processes.” Journal of Systems and Software 75 (1–2): 3–16. Behzadan, A. H., and V. R. Kamat. 2013. “Enabling Discovery-Based Learning in Construction Using Telepresent Augmented Reality.” Automation in Construction 33: 3–10. Bloom, B. S., M. D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals; Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman. Carvalho, V. 2012. “Is Game-based Learning Suitable for Engineering Education?” Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 1–8, Marrakech, Morocco. Chadderton, D. V. 2000. Building Services Engineering. 3rd ed. New York: Taylor & Francis. Chen, R., X. Wang. 2008. “An Empirical Study on Tangible Augmented Reality Learning Space for Design Skill Transfer.” Tsinghua Science & Technology 13 (1): 13–18. Coller, B. D., and M. J. Scott. 2009. “Effectiveness of using a Video Game to Teach a Course in Mechanical Engineering.” Computers & Education 53 (3): 900–912. Deshpande, A. A., and S. H. Huang. 2011. “Simulation Games in Engineering Education: A State-of-the-Art Review.” Computer Application in Engineering Education 19: 399–410. Deterding, S., D. Dixon, R. Khaled, and L. Nacke. 2011. “From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining ‘Gamification’.” Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, 9–15, New York, NY, USA. Domínguez, A., J. Saenz-de-Navarrete, L. de-Marcos, L. Fernández-Sanz, C. Pagés, and J. J. Martínez-Herráiz. 2013. “Gamifying Learning Experiences: Practical Implications and Outcomes.” Computers & Education 63: 380–392. Eastman, C., P. Teicholz, R. Sacks, and K. Liston. 2011. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Ebner, M., and A. Holzinger. 2007. “Successful Implementation of User-Centered Game Based Learning in Higher Education: An Example from Civil Engineering.” Computers & Education 49 (3): 873–890. European Parliament and Council. 2010. “Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the Energy Performance of Buildings.” Official Journal of the European Union L153: 13–35. Falloon, G. 2013. “Young Students using iPads: App Design and Content Influences on their Learning Pathways.” Computers & Education 68: 505–521. Goodchild, M. F. 2009. “Geographic Information Systems and Science: Today and Tomorrow.” Procedia Earth and Planetary Science 1 (1): 1037–1043. Gyllenskog, J. H. 1976. “Konane as a Vehicle for Teaching AI.” ACM SIGART Bulletin 56: 5–6. Hainey, T., T. M. Connolly, M. Stansfield, and E. A. Boyle. 2011. “Evaluation of a Game to Teach Requirements Collection and Analysis in Software Engineering at Tertiary Education Level.” Computers & Education 56 (1): 21–35. Hauge, J. B., B. Pourabdollahian, and J. C. K. H. Riedel. 2012. “Workshop on the Use of Serious Games in the Education of Engineers.” Procedia Computer Science 15: 341–342. Hirose, Y., J. Sugiura, and K. Shimomoto. 2004. “Industrial Waste Management Simulation Game and Its Educational Effect.” Journal of Material Cycles Waste and Management 6: 58–63. Horne, M., and E. M. Thompson. 2008. “The Role of Virtual Reality in Built Environment Education.” Journal for Education in the Built Environment 3 (1): 5–24. Hwang, G. J., T.-C. Yang, C.-C. Tsai, S. J. H. Yang. 2009. “A Context-Aware Ubiquitous Learning Environment for Conducting Complex Science Experiments.” Computers & Education 53 (2): 402–413. Irizarry, J., E. P. Karan, and F. Jalaei. 2013. “Integrating BIM and GIS to Improve the Visual Monitoring of Construction Supply Chain Management.” Automation in Construction 31: 241–254. Irvine, C., and M. Thompson. 2003. “Teaching Objectives of a Simulation Game for Computer Security.” Proceedings of Informing Science and Information Technology Joint Conference, Pori, Finland. Jones, V., and J. H. Jo. 2004. “Ubiquitous Learning Environment: An Adaptive Teaching System Using Ubiquitous Technology.” Beyond the Comfort Zone: Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, 468–474, Perth, Australia. Kapp, K. M. 2012. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Kaufmann, H. 2003. “Collaborative Augmented Reality in Education.” ‘Imagina Conference 2003’, issued by: Imagina; Monaco Mediax, Monaco (invited). Kipper, G., and J. Rampolla. 2012. Augmented Reality: An Emerging Technologies Guide to AR. Waltham, MA: Elsevier. Kitchenham, B. 2004. “Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews.” Joint technical report Software Engineering Group, Keele University, United Kingdom and Empirical Software Engineering, National ICT Australia Ltd, Australia. Klemeš, J. J., Z. Kravanja, P. S. Varbanov, and H. L. Lam. 2013. “Advanced Multimedia Engineering Education in Energy, Process Integration and Optimization.” Applied Energy 101: 33–40.
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
European Journal of Engineering Education
15
Lee, W. B., H. C. W. Lau, and A. Ning. 2006. “An Integrated Study Methodology for Learning Strategic Inventory Management.” International Journal of Engineering 22: 329–342. Leemkuil, H., T. de Jong, R. de Hoog, and N. Christoph. 2003. “KM QUEST: A Collaborative Internet-based Simulation Game.” Simulation Gaming 34: 89–111. Liarokapis, F., N. Mourkoussis, M. J. Darcy White, M. Sifniotis, P. Petridis, A. Basu, and P. F. Lister. 2004. “Web3D and Augmented Reality to Support Engineering Education.” World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education 3 (1): 11–14. Mälkki, H., K. Alanne, and L. Hirsto. 2012. “Energy Engineering Students on Their Way to Expertise in Sustainable Energy.” Environmental and Climate Technologies 8 (1): 24–28. Mandal, P., K. K. Wong, and P. E. D. Love. 2000. “Internet-Supported Flexible Learning Environment for Teaching Systems Dynamics to Engineering Students.” Computer Applications in Engineering Education 8: 1–10. Marinagi, C., C. Skourlas, and P. Belsis. 2013. “Employing Ubiquitous Computing Devices and Technologies in the Higher Education Classroom of the Future.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 73: 487–494. Martin, A. 2000. “The Design and Evolution of a Simulation/Game for Teaching Information Systems Development.” Simulation Gaming 31: 445–463. Ministry of Education and Culture. 2012. “Education and Research 2011–2016. A Development Plan.” Reports of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2012:3. ISBN 978-952-263-096-4. Morsi, R., and E. Jackson. 2007. “Playing and Learning? Educational Gaming for Engineering Education.” 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, F2H-1–F2H-6, Milwaukee, WI, USA. Navarro, E. O., and A. van der Hoek. 2004. “SIMSE: An Interactive Simulation Game for Software Engineering Education.” Proceedings of the 7th IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education, 12–17, Kauai, Hawaii. Peredo, R., A. Canales, A. Menchaca, and I. Peredo. 2011. “Intelligent Web-based Education System for Adaptive Learning.” Expert Systems with Applications 38 (12): 14690–14702. Phan, V. T., and S. Y. Choo. 2010. “Augmented Reality-based Education and Fire Protection for Traditional Korean Buildings.” International Journal of Architectural Computing 8 (1): 75–91. Philpot, T. A., R. H. Hall, N. Hubing, and R. E. Flori. 2005. “Using Games to Teach Statics Calculation Procedures: Application and Assessment.” Computer Applications in Engineering Education 13: 222–232. Poplin, A. 2012. “Playful Public Participation in Urban Planning: A Case Study for Online Serious Games.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 36 (3): 195–206. Pourabdollahian, B., M. Taisch, and E. Kerga. 2012. “Serious Games in Manufacturing Education: Evaluation of Learners’ Engagement.” Procedia Computer Science 15: 256–265. Reed, J. A., and A. A. Afjeh. 1998. “Developing Interactive Educational Engineering Software for the World Wide Web with Java.” Computers & Education 30: 183–194. Reinalda, B., and E. Kulesza. 2006. The Bologna Process: Harmonizing Europe’s Higher Education. 2nd ed. Opladen, Germany: Barbara Budrich. Ross, A. M., M. E. Fitzgerald, and D. H. Rhodes. 2014. “Game-based Learning for Systems Engineering Concepts.” Procedia Computer Science 28: 430–440. Scott, D., M. Mawdesley, and S. Al-Jibouri. 2004. “The Use and Efficacy of a Simulation Model for Teaching Project Control in Construction.” First International Conference on World of Construction Project Management, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Simões, J., R. D. Redondo, and A. Fernández Vilas. 2013. “A Social Gamification Framework for a K-6 Learning Platform.” Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2): 345–353. Wang, X., P. E. D. Love, M. J. Kim, C.-S. Park, C.-P. Sing, and L. Hou. 2012. “A Conceptual Framework for Integrating Building Information Modeling with Augmented Reality.” Automation in Construction 34: 37–44. Washington-Ottombre, C., B. Pijanowski, D. Campbell, J. Olson, J. Maitima, A. Musili, T. Kibaki, et al. 2010. “Using a Role-playing Game to Inform the Development of Land-use Models for the Study of a Complex Socio-Ecological System.” Agricultural Systems 103 (3): 117–126. Yan, W., C. Culp, and R. Graf. 2011. “Integrating BIM and Gaming for Real-Time Interactive Architectural Visualization.” Automation in Construction 20 (4): 446–458.
About the author Kari Alanne graduated in an MSc (Tech.) degree in energy economics in 1997. Later, he carried on post-graduate studies in heat transfer and fluid mechanics, HVAC technologies and system analysis. He obtained the degree of D.Sc (Tech.) at Helsinki University of Technology in 2007. He has investigated the application of decision analysis in the selection of energy solutions for buildings, focusing on the integration of micro-cogeneration technologies. Since 2006, Kari Alanne has been working as a University Lecturer at the Department of Energy Technology of Aalto University. Previously, he worked as a Research Scientist at VTT (Technical Research Centre of Finland) and as a Special Lecturer and Assistant at Lappeenranta University of Technology. Between 2003 and 2010, he had worked in various overseas institutions including Ruhr-Universität Bochum (Germany), the University of Victoria (Canada), Carleton University (Canada) and De Montfort University (UK).
16
K. Alanne
Selected publications: Alanne Kari and Saari Arto. 2004. “Sustainable Small-Scale CHP Technologies for Buildings: The Basis for MultiPerspective Decision-making.” Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 8: 401–431. Alanne Kari and Saari Arto. 2006. “Distributed Energy Generation and Sustainable Development.” Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 10: 539–558.
Downloaded by [91.154.117.19] at 23:47 02 August 2015
Alanne Kari, Salo Ahti, Saari Arto and Gustafsson Stig-Inge. 2007. “Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Residential Energy Supply Systems.” Energy and Buildings 39: 1218–1226.
