Expert Judgment on Preschoolers' Cognitive Game

International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Volume 118 No. 20 2018, 539-544 ISSN: 1314-3395 (on-line version) url: http://www.ijpam.eu Special Issue

ijpam.eu

Expert Judgment on Preschoolers’ Cognitive Game Prototype [1][2]

Endah Sudarmilah, [3]Umi Fadlilah

[2]

Adhi Susanto, [2]Ridi Ferdiana, [4]Neila Ramdhani, [2]Paulus Insap Santosa [1] Informatics Department, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Surakarta, Indonesia , [2] Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, [3] Electrical Engineering Department, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Surakarta, Indonesia, [4] Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

 Abstract— Native digital is a reality that occurs in childhood. Preschoolers are easier to access to digital devices such as computers, tablets, and smart phones making children so used to gadgets. An application widely accessed by preschoolers is a video game. The video games impact for children can lead to any drawbacks but also end up on benefits like video games to stimulate preschoolers' cognitive abilities in this study. Finding out its usability, playability and educational content is the required assessment of experts in an eligible field. This study aims to determine the expert's assessment on the usability, playability and educational content of video games "RhinoHero" in stimulating cognitive children. Expert judgment/review is a method used in this research with expert game developers, psychologists, and teachers of early childhood. The outcomes obtained are expert judgments on "RhinoHero" video games that are deliberately designed to stimulate the cognitive abilities of preschoolers. These will be discussed in this paper .

childhood/preschoolers [9]. The study result detail will be elaborated in this paper. II. LITERATURE REVIEW A. Video Game System Development “RhinoHero” video game system development [9] has orientation on software development process by employing SDLC (Software Development Life Cycle) method with a modified Waterfall model [10]–[12]. The steps of a game system development are: The need analysis; this process aims to obtain as what feature and how the child’s cognitive ability to be considered in designing a video game to stimulate children’s cognitive ability [13]. Game designing; video game designing is performed by creating storyboard while observing the children’s cognitive ability component. Prototyping; this prototyping process is a game designing activity including 3 stages, namely concept stage, elaboration stage and tuning stage [14]. This is through adjustment process with learning system on early childhood/preschoolers such as three times repli cation processes adopted as the negative scoring system surrogate as well as Vygotsky (scalfolding) learning stages on game’s level [15]. The stage between prototyping and implementation is expert judgement validation. Implementation; is the game application to be used as intervention tool for early childhood/preschoolers .

Index Terms— video game, preschoolers, expert judgment.

I. I NTRODUCTION This video game study for preschoolers talked about the issue of early childhood development. Since this period is also referred to as golden period, window of opportunity, and critical period. Comprehensively and qualified guiding the child’s growth and development through stimulation activity, detection and early intervention for child’s growth and development should be conducted during this “critical period” [1]. The effect of game on a child is wide-ranging. The studies regarding of it have revealed several game effects toward a child’s development, particularly for preschoolers , such as, it can be used as study source and a stimulation for a child’s creativity [2]. Preschoolers generally like games not least video game. Recently, they were born as digital native. Gadget, such as smartphone, tablets, computer are familiar for them to access various and popular video games [3], [4]. It is therefore, guiding preschoolers with serious game that has benefit or positive impact for them becoming an obligation for the parties associated with preschoolers’ education [5]. This can be performed by providing some judgment from experts regarding the usability [6], playbility, and [7] an educational content of video game [8]. They are used as the expert judgment study foundation on “RhinoHero” video game designed to stimulate early

B. Expert Judgment/ Review for Video Game “RhinoHero” video game system validation process is performed with expert judgement method involving psychologists, early childhood teachers and game programmers (as the experts) from the beginning of video game development. In this process, experts are requested to justify as how the playing process in a game, included the game properties utilization developed, is in accordance with their judgment expertise. Psychologists will justify the game psychological aspects toward early childhood/preschoolers development, and early childhood teachers will provide commentary and improvement to the playing process in a game in order to match with the early childhood/preschoolers’ curriculum and learning; whilst game programmers will provide input in terms of technique in its playing process. This has benefit in which

1

539

International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics

it will posses more positive effect on the study and more supportive on the earlier study devel opment [16]. The expert choosing also needs validation from the experts themselves. This is performed by choosing the certified experts in their own field, namely psychologists, early childhood teachers and the game developers who have experience as practitioners. The suggestion obtained from psychologists, early childhood teachers, and game developers in the expert judgment process will become the improvement materials in a game design process that will be used in the intervention.

mean usability by 4.2 in which it wa s between the scaling rate 4 (high) and 5 (very high). Thirteen usability assessments that each of them was assessed could be played by user (preschoolers). All of them were above scale 4, except on character status component (figure) that only obtained the value of 3.3 (ID GU4). Whilst the highest value on game scenario item (ID GU1b) and navigation/game clue (ID GU10) were 4.56. The items of this usability assessment consisted of audio visual, background, control game, game system feedback, and navigation in which their assessment could be seen in detail in Figure 1 and Table I. B. Video Game Playability “RhinoHero” playability game assessment was also based on Korhonen’s playability game assessment criteria . Rating scale result obtained was generally almost similar to its usability value of 4.25 that was between the assessment range of 4 (high) and 5 (very high). Fourteen game playability criteria, with playability value scale in every component were similar to or above 4. The highest rating scale was in the character suitable to children (ID GP4) and in the game variation (ID GP10), 4.56. The item of level information (ID GP2), game representation in the real world (ID GP12) and the character/figure role (ID GP1) was assessed with the lowest value of 3.89; however, it was still considered as good since its value was above 3 (medium/average) and close to rating scale 4 (high). This was due to the game figure/character chosen and designed that is anthropomorphic in nature in which it was accordance with the preschoolers’ imagination.

III. METHODOLOGY The method used in this study is by employing Expert judgement/review method to find out the judgment from the experts regarding the usability, playbility and the educational content of “RhinoHero” video game (already designed) in stimulating preschoolers’ cognitive [9]. Experts involved in this study are the ones who become the stake holder in the game design to stimulate the preschoolers’ cognitive. They are: game developers, psychologists and preschoolers’ teachers. IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This study began with game prototyping up to system testing using black box method. Based on the study plan, the next step was system validation by employing expert judgment method or often referred to as expert review [17], [18]. Expert judgment/review was the data collection method involving experts in their respective expertise to justify a game that had been designed; in this case, it wa s “RhinoHero”. Game validation was performed to asses a game in terms of its system (game usability and game playability) by 9 game developers, while 3 psychologists and 3 preschoolers’ teacher asses sed the game from its educational content. The way to interpret this expert judgment results was by processing rating scale data by finding out the rating scale mean obtained from the experts. This mean was then categorized based on the preliminary rating scale. This was conducted because the data obtained from the experts didn’t fulfill the normal distribution pri nciple; however, the number of experts providing judgment in this study was enough in clinical psychology single-case [19], [20]. The value of game usability and game ability obtained from the game developer assessment was provided by applying Korhonen’s game assessment standard using user interface heuristic evaluation principle [21]–[23]. The experts chosen to asses this already designed game provided input on the “Rhino Hero” game judgment, whether there was available or not the cognitive concept statement in rating scale item columns and how intensive this game was used by giving number 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. Number 1 to 5 within rating scale represented that cognitive concept level applied/utilized in “Rhino Hero” game were as follow; 1 (very low), 2 (low), 3 (medium), 4 (high) and 5 (very high). A. Video Game Usability “Rhino Hero” game usability by expert had high enough

Fi g. 1 Ga me Us a bi l ty Res ul ts .

2

540

Special Issue


TABLE I DETAIL CRITERIA OF GAME USABILITY No 1

ID Us a bi l i ty GU1a

2

GU1b

3

GU2

4

GU3

5

GU4

6

GU5

7

GU6

8

GU7

9

GU8

10

GU9

11

GU10

12

GU11

13

GU12

Special Issue

TABLE II DETAIL CRITERIA OF GAME PLAYABILITY

Deta i l cri teri a Gra phi c/Vi s ua l a nd a udi o (voi ce) ga me ha d s upported the chi l d ga me’s s tory l i ne/s cena ri o a nd i t coul d comfort them a s they were i nvol ved/pl a yed the ga me. Ga me s cena ri o ha d been a bl e to a ttra ct chi l dren i n pl a yi ng ga me . Ga me ba ckground l a youts ha d been i nforma ti ve a nd gui de d chi l dren a s the pl a yers . Ga me i nterfa ce (ba ckground, mous e, touch s creen or voi ce ) ha d been di s pl a yed/uti l i zed in a ccorda nce wi th i ts functi on. Ga me cha ra cter s ta tus (every l evel ) coul d be found out by pl a yer. The terms (l a ngua ge ) us ed coul d be unders tood by a chi l d. Ga me’s cl ue/na vi ga ti on ha d been cons i s tent; fol l owi ng a chi l d’s thi nki ng l ogi cs a nd s i mpl e ga me. Ga me control button (touch s creen a nd mous e) fa ci l i ta ted chi l dren i n pl a yi ng the ga me. The buttons i n a ga me we re s i mpl i fi ed a nd comforta bl e for chi l dren to us e i n pl a yi ng. Ga me ha d a l rea dy gi ven feedba ck to chi l dren (pl a yers ) i f the a ns wer wa s ri ght/wrong. Ga me provi ded na vi ga ti on i f i t performed the ri ght/wrong s tep. The s teps i n a ga me a re a ccorda nce wi th the chi l dren l evel (do not gi ve burden/ma ke s tres s ). Ga me ha d provi ded a cl ea r a nd coherent tutori a l for chi l dren a s pl a yers .

No 1

Deta i l cri teri a The purpos e of pl a yi ng a ga me (overa l l or every l evel ) ha d been obvi ous for chi l dren. 2 GP2 Progres s (l evel ) i nforma ti on ha d been a va i l a bl e wi thi n a ga me (the l evel tra ns fer i s cl ea rl y s een). 3 GP3 Every ti me wi nni ng a ga me, there wa s a ni ce a nd va ri ous rewa rd (pri ze). 4 GP4 Ga me pl a yer (cha ra cter) coul d ma ke chi l dren a cti ng a s a deci s i on ma ker i n pl a yi ng. 5 GP5 The cha l l enges a nd ga me s tra tegi es ha d been s ui ta bl e to/ma tch wi th the pres chool ers ’ a bi l i ty/s ki l l ; thus , they woul d not be ea s i l y bored. 6 GP6 Ga me coul d a ttra ct chi l dren/pl a yers to ha ve a des i re i n pl a yi ng a ga i n. 7 GP7 Al l ga me pa rts ha d mea ni ng a nd i nteres ti ng for chi l dren/pl a yer. 8 GP8 The ta s ks gi ven were not bori ng for chi l dren/pl a yers . 9 GP9 Ga me a l l owed chi l dren to expres s a s i f they were rea l l y i nvol ved i n tha t ga me. 10 GP10 Ga me provi ded ma ny ki nd of i nforma ti on i n how to pl a y. 11 GP11 Chi l dren/pl a ye rs s houl d feel tha t they were a bl e to rea ch the goa l a nd the ongoi ng ga me. 12 GP12 The i nci dents i n a ga me worl d des cri bed (res embl ed) the rea l worl d (wha t wa s performed i n the ga me res embl ed the a cti on i n the rea l worl d). 13 GP13 Ga me ha d s evera l cha ra cters /pl a yers ha vi ng thei r own rol es . 14 GP14 Ga me provi ded rewa rd i n every l evel tha t coul d be uti l i zed i n the C. Educational Content next l evel .

These game playability items also assessed the clarity of system, purpose, reward as well as the task/challenge within the game itself. Detail of game playability assessment component and its result could be seen in Figure 2 and Table II.

Educational content assessed in this “Rhino Hero” game was confirmatory in nature since the educational content assessed was the input/recommendation from experts toward the need analysis when designing the game concept. This input/recommendation was indeed mapped into every game component [24]; thus, it simplified its game designing process and assessment (confirmatory). Every game component had its own item and detail from different educational content criteria. This depended on expert’s input/recommendation as designing game concept at the beginning of study. The result of assessment scale presented in Figure 3 was the mean result of assessment scale in every game component consisted of several aforementioned criteria. Total number of criteria i tems were 28 games content assessment scale criteria with most item was on “story line” game component (see Table III). It showed that expert stated that educational content had been available on every game component in which the assessment scale was simil ar to or higher than 3. The highest value scale of educational game was on

Fi g. 2 Ga me Pl a ya bi l i ty Res ul ts .

3

541

ID Pl a ya bi l i ty GP1


Special Issue

background component (ID EC6) 4.5 and the lowest component was on audio/music (ID EC3) with assessment scale as 3. This was interpreted that the game background had been sufficient and for audio/music was assessed as medium. This was due to the certain part of audio/music had remained set on higher volume than its audio navigation game. V. CONCLUSION Based on the discussion and explanation, it can be concluded that Expert assessed that “Rhino Hero” game had high enough mean usability value (between 4 [high] and 5 [very high]), as well as the mean value of its playability. Whil e Educational Content component showed that expert stated that educational content had been available in every game component in which its assessment scale was similar to or above 3 (average/medium) .

Fi g. 3 Educa ti ona l Content Res ul ts .

TABLE III DETAIL CRITERIA OF EDUCATIONAL CONTENT IN GAME COMPONENTS No 1

Ga me Components Cha ra cter

ID

Deta i l Cri teri a

2 3

Gra phi c Audi o/Mus i c

EC1a EC1b EC1c EC2 EC3

There wa s ma jor fi gure, peer fri ends a nd a cti ng on thei r own rol es . Obvi ous fi gure emoti on expres s i on . There were di fferent a ge fi gures (a dul t, teena ger, etc.) Interes ti ng col ors for chi l dren (cheerful , s oft, na tura l ). Interes ti ng & cheerful mus i c but not noi s y; thus , i mprovi ng ha ppi nes s . Ei ther ba ck s ound or rewa rd a ni ma ti on ba ck s ound. Ga me us ed a ggre s s i ve concept tha t wa s unders ta nda bl e a nd s a fe for chi l dren's a ge (a ggres s i ve but not des tructi ve a nd not-nega ti ve) Logi ca l s toryl i ne, s uch a s on the l i fe context of chi l dren worl d (for exa mpl e: pl a yi ng wi th fri ends i n a pa rk but not on the s treet) . Rul e concept i ntroducti on/a ppl i ca ti on for chi l dren i n tha t s etti ng. For exa mpl e: s tea l i ng i s not good. There were s evera l ti me va ri a ti ons a nd tea chi ng ti me di fference (noon, a fternoon, ni ght, etc.) There wa s chronol ogi ca l s tory to crea te the s tory concept on chi l dren. There wa s i ma gi na ti on tha t coul d s ti mul a te i t (ma gi c) to chi l dren i n order to ma ke them a ttra cted more to the ga me; however, i t needed s ome l i mi ta ti on i n order tha t the i ma gi na ti on woul d not emerge fea r/a nxi ety or s ti mul a ted nega ti ve i ma gi na ti on. There were cons tructi ng el ements /a s pects wi thi n a ga me, exa mpl e: a s s embl i ng objects , a s s embl i ng geometri ca l objects , des i gni ng bl ock, compl eti ng pi cture, orga ni zi ng a l ego to ma ke a pa rti cul a r cons tructi on/s ha pe. The exi s tence of unders ta nda bl e a nd ea s y to fol l ow cl ues (concrete i l l us tra ti on a nd ora l a s wel l a s wri tten expl a na ti on i n every a cti vi ty) . The exi s tence of s i mpl e words a nd l a ngua ges ; however, they were ea s y to unders ta nd a nd a ddi ng voca bul a ri es . There wa s word repeti ti on us a ge, for exa mpl e: l evel , cl ea r, s core, rewa rd, number/va l ue obta i ned. The i nci dence repeti ti on, chi l dren l ea rned from exa mpl es /movements /events ti me a fter ti me. Chi l dren l ea rned to cha ra cteri ze, i mi ta te, a nd a ddi ng or they l ea rned through exa mpl es a nd then produced/crea ted thei r own beha vi or. There wa s opportuni ty to repea t i f the fa i l ure occurred, thus i t moti va ted chi l dren to l ea rn. There were cha l l enges a s probl em to be s ol ved. Appl yi ng the typi ca l a nd s i mpl e envi ronment to chi l dren. For exa mpl e: pa rk/open na ture. Introduci ng ma ny ki nds of a ni ma l s , not onl y one. There wa s di fferent cha l l enge, wi th the di ffi cu l ty l evel s s ta rted from the l ow to hi gh i n cons ecuti ve s ta ges ; therefore, i t di dn't ha ve monotonous effect/bori ng. The chi l dren were a s ked to predi ct the preci s e ti me i n a ppl yi ng s tra tegi es (for exa mpl e: s i mul ta neous l y us i ng the s uperi ori ty pos s es s ed by the cha ra cter).

4

Storyl i ne

EC4a EC4b EC4c EC4d EC4e EC4f

EC4g

5

Game Scenario

EC5a EC5b EC5c EC5d

EC5e

6

Ba ckground

7

Level a nd Cha l l enge

EC5f EC6a EC6b EC7a

EC7b

4

542


VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This work was supported by Research, Technology and Directorate General of Higher Education (RISTEKDIKTI) of Indonesia, Informatics Department and Electrical Engineering of Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta (UMS).

[12] [13]

REFERENCES [1]

[2] [3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10] [11]

[14]

I. S. Ba ron a nd K. A. Leonberger, “As s es s ment of Intel l i gence i n the Pres chool Peri od,” Neuropsychol. Rev., vol . 22, no. 4, pp. 334–344, Dec. 2012. E. B. Hurl ock, Child Development, 6th ed. New York: Mc. Gra w Hi l l , Inc., 1978. S. Ryong Hong a nd I. Young Shi n, “The Appl i ca ti on of Mul ti medi a a nd Wi rel es s Technol ogy i n Educa ti on,” Indian J. Sci. Technol., vol . 8, no. 20, Aug. 2015. E. W. Lee, J. G. Shon, a nd Y. Ki m, “Des i gn a nd Impl ementa ti on of Engl i s h Lea rni ng Appl i ca ti on for Ea rl y Chi l dhood,” Indian J. Sci. Technol., vol . 8, no. S7, p. 679, Apr. 2015. E. Suda rmi l a h, A. Sus a nto, R. Ferdi a na , a nd N. Ra mdha ni , “Popul a r ga mes , ca n a ny concept of cogni ti ve pres chool ers be i n i t?,” i n 2015 2nd International Conference on Information Technology, Computer, and Electrical Engineering (ICITACEE), 2015, pp. 31–35. M. Ma s ood a nd M. Thi ga mba ra m, “The Us a bi l i ty of Mobi l e Appl i ca ti ons for Pre -s chool ers ,” Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci., vol . 197, pp. 1818–1826, Jul . 2015. H. Korhonen, Evaluating Playability of Mobile Games with the Expert Review Method. School of Informa ti on Sci ences Uni vers i ty of Ta mpere, 2016. J. Nunes Ma rci a no, L. Cunha de Mi ra nda , a nd E. Es teves Cunha de Mi ra nda , “Eva l ua ti ng Mul ti pl e As pects of Educa ti ona l Computer Ga mes : Li tera ture Revi ew a nd Ca s e Study,” Int. J. Comput. Games Technol., vol . 2014, pp. 1–12, 2014. E. Suda rmi l a h, A. Sus a nto, R. Ferdi a na , a nd N. Ra mdha ni , “Pres chool ers ’ cogni ti ve ga me prototype,” i n 2017 International Conference on Applied System Innovation (ICASI), 2017, pp. 1875–1878. A.A.Punta mbeka r, Software Engineering. Techni ca l Publ i ca ti ons , 2009. P. Ra guna th, S. Vel mourouga n, P. Da va chel va n, S.

[15] [16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

5

543

Special Issue

Ka ya l vi zhi , a nd R. Ra vi moha n, “Evol vi ng a new model (SDLC Model -2010) for s oftwa re devel opment l i fe cycl e (SDLC),” Int. J. Comput. Sci. Netw. Secur., vol . 10, no. 1, pp. 112–119, 2010. A. M. La nger, Guide to Software Development: Designing and Managing the Life Cycle. Spri nger, 2012. K. McCa rri ck a nd X. Li , “Buri ed Trea s ure : The Impa ct of Computer Us e on Young Chi l dren’s Soci a l , Cogni ti ve, La ngua ge Devel opment a nd Moti va ti on,” AACE J., vol . 15, no. 1, pp. 73–95, 2007. E. Ada ms , Fundamentals of Game Design. Berkel ey, CA, USA: New Ri ders , 2013. J. . Sa ntrock a nd S. R. Yus s en, Child Development. Dubuque, IA, Wm, C.Brown., 1992. I. Ma yer, “Towa rds a Comprehens i ve Methodol ogy for the Res ea rch a nd Eva l ua ti on of Seri ous Ga mes ,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol . 15, pp. 233–247, 2012. H. Korhonen, “Compa ri s on of pl a yte s ti ng a nd expert revi ew methods i n mobi l e ga me eva l ua ti on,” i n Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Fun and Games - Fun and Games ’10, 2010, pp. 18–27. V. Na cher, F. Ga rci a -Sa njua n, a nd J. Ja en, “Intera cti ve technol ogi es for pres chool ga me-ba s ed i ns tructi on: Experi ences a nd future cha l l enges ,” Entertain. Comput., vol . 17, pp. 19–29, 2016. W. R. Sha di s h, T. D. Cook, a nd D. T. Ca mpbel l , Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mi ffl i n, 2002. L. Cohen, L. Ma ni on, a nd K. Morri s on, Research Methods in Education, Si xth. New York, NY, USA: Ta yl or & Fra nci s e-Li bra ry, 2007. D. Pi nel l e, N. Wong, a nd T. Sta ch, “Heuri s ti c Eva l ua ti on for Ga mes : Us a bi l i ty Pri nci pl es for Vi deo Ga me Des i gn,” i n CHI 2008 Procceedings Game Zone, 2008, pp. 1453–1462. S. Pa pa l ouka s , K. Pa tri a rchea s , a nd M. Xenos , “Us a bi l i ty As s es s ment Heuri s ti cs i n New Genre Vi deoga mes ,” i n 2009 13th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, 2009, pp. 202–206. H. Des urvi re a nd M. S. El -Na s r, “Methods for Ga me Us er Res ea rch: Studyi ng Pl a yer Beha vi or to Enha nce Ga me Des i gn,” IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., vol . 33, no. 4, pp. 82–87, Jul . 2013. E. Suda rmi l a h, A. Sus a nto, R. Ferdi a na , a nd N. Ra mdha ni , “Devel opi ng a ga me for pres ch ool ers : Wha t cha ra cter, emoti on a nd rewa rd wi l l tend to ha ck pres chool ers ?,” 2015, pp. 89–92.

544