Research Questions - March 2024
Introduction
The role of GDPs in the personal appropriation of concepts and processes
- The interrelationship of GDPs and the development of technical processes
GDPs used in the process of guided participation
Use of GDPs in the cultural plane / community level of activity
Discussion
- Addressing the use of GDPs in relation to theoretical understandings of processes of mediation and incorporation in repertoires of practice
- Observations on emerging design practices
Conclusion
MOVED FROM INTRODUCTION
- MOVED FROM GUIDED PARTICIPATION
- Future work on abstraction, layers of abstraction GDPs and the MDA framework
MOVE FROM cH 7 - ANY SPACE HERE?
Impact of Side Missions and Maker Types on playtesting behaviours

The Use of Gameplay Design Patterns “It’s like a project in itself, really”

Research Questions - March 2024

What pedagogical tools and processes are available to support novices to overcome barriers to participation in game coding processes?
How does CHAT theory help us understand how game design patterns x can be used in an evolving community of novice game makers?
How can learners build agency in an evolving community of game makers?

Introduction

Software design patterns are a grouping of a description of target project behaviour, with a suggested community solution of code structure often accompanied with worked examples (see Chapter 2). While existing research explores the use of game design patterns in educational settings, for instance to aid the transfer of science simulation concepts to other contexts [@repenning_scalable_2015; @basawapatna_using_2010] or as a foundation for co-design work [@eriksson_using_2019], there is limited work addressing their role in overcoming challenges faced by emerging communities of game creators using text coding. In the previous chapter, I outlined the evolution of tool use, emphasising emerging tensions in activity. The importance of gameplay design patterns (GDPs) emerged from participant input in P1 and were then integrated by myself into various forms of scaffolding within and graded step of practice including: quick-start activities, instructional tutorials, and code snippet examples. This chapter shifts focus to the perspectives of participants, using recorded data to interpret their varied uses and adaptations of GDP use. In doing so, it addresses the research question: How does CHAT theory help us understand how game design patterns can be used in an evolving community of novice game makers? I describe the use of GDPs as diverse mediational strategies to overcome some of the tensions explored in the previous chapter, not only addressing the use of facilitator-provided resources but also as part of emerging community practices and interpersonal repertoires.

INSERT SUMMARY TABLE FROM HERE - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ce2cYIYnFCd9GM8zRntBd7lrud-dMbbrtgEQMoGNRmE/edit

Table 6.1: Varied GDP use and summary of supporting evidence

The above table summarises the principal different uses of GDPs in the data analysed. The right column lists example behaviours and notes vignettes or appendices where the behaviour can be found in situ with more detailed analysis. In this table and the structure of this chapter, I employ Rogoff’s three planes of analysis [@rogoff_observing_1995], as introduced in Chapter Four. This chapter’s sections examine how gameplay design patterns are utilised broadly by parents, children and facilitators, each through the lens of a respective analytical plane. Recognising that these observations do not neatly align with the three planes, I discuss the use of GDPs across cultural activities, interpersonal activity and personal knowledge in three distinct sections. An analogy can be drawn between these three planes of analysis and the examination of activity systems at varying scopes. Specifically, the cultural plane aligns with the community scope of activity described in Figure 5.x in the previous chapter, while the interpersonal and personal planes correspond to smaller scopes depicted in Figure 5.x. A discussion section explores the implications of these findings in relation to existing research and theoretical concepts.

The role of GDPs in the personal appropriation of concepts and processes

As outlined in Chapter 2, the focus on curricular knowledge and related skills developed by participants is the dominant thread in research on digital coding and game making [@kafai_constructionist_2015-1; @papert_mindstorms:_1980]. The research aims of this study focus on the less explored areas of the social and cultural aspects of the coding process of novices. As such, the design of this study does not fully address the exploration of the personal appropriation plane of activity. Additionally, in this informal learning context, participants did not request exploration of concepts aligned with the computing curriculum, instead being driven more by a practical desire to make a game using the tools provided. Despite this, the evolving design process resulted in activities which did allow the exploration of computational thinking and other curricular concepts. Given the potential to adapt this learning design to a more formal environment to address the needs outlined in the introductory chapter, from P2 onwards I began to augment the learning design to suit curriculum-oriented teaching and assessment of computational thinking concepts and skills, a process which resulted in a learning map of curricular concepts included here as Table 6.x.

Coding Concepts	Systems Patterns	Design Practices
Sequences	Systems Elements	Goal Setting
Variables	Systems Dynamics	Being Incremental and Iterative
Logic	Reinforcing Feedback Loops	Developing Vocabulary
Loops	Balancing Feedback Loops	Web Navigation
Arrays		Problem Solving
Creating Functions		Version Control
Change Listener		Debugging
Input Event		Reusing and Remixing

Table 6.x. Learning Dimensions of the 3M Game Making Model

Appendix.learningmap explores in more detail the evolution of this map, which acknowledges significant tensions in the integration of concepts into an informal context, and draws on the process and rationale of Bevan and Petrich’s [-@bevan_learning_2015; -@petrich_it_2013] work to bring a similar learning map to a seemingly chaotic tinkering and making process in museum contexts. There is a tension in the evolution of this learning map, one familiar to teachers using project- and play-based approaches, between the naturalistic approach made possible by the non-formal learning environment and the desire to align with curricular concepts. It is of value to compare this observational approach to the design-driven process typified by research on Microworlds, which foregrounds the role of learning designers in shaping the affordances of (playful) learning environments to steer learners toward exploring curricular concepts. In much of the Microworlds research, these are often scientific or mathematical concepts: take, for example, geometry in Turtle computing with the LOGO language [@ernest_whats_1988]. While there are similarities between this design and the constructionist ethos behind LOGO, the leading motivation of this study is the creation of and acculturation to a game-making community. Kynigos [-@kynigos_black-and-white_2004-1] explores the tension between more targeted/restrictive and more adaptable technology toolsets using a white-box, black-box distinction (explored in the literature review), noting the difficulty of communicating the value of non-commodified, adaptable toolsets despite their exploratory potential. The design of this research’s learning template can be seen as a half-baked Microworld [@kynigos_half-baked_2007], with the varied affordances of the design interpreted as invitations to contribute to an improvable boundary object [@kynigos_half-baked_2007, p.336]. This focus thus motivates and facilitates a discussion on a shared experience in a way that aligns with the sociocultural focus of this study.

The interrelationship of GDPs and the development of technical processes

Given the limited focus of this thesis, only one dimension of personal appropriation is included here: the technical implementation of coding structures. The implementation of GDPs can encourage participants to adopt or share technical processes in various ways. These processes were sometimes introduced in a basic form through scaffolded activities, supporting documentation, or informal interactions between peers. The following observations illustrate how introduced processes were adapted and modified by the community.

To integrate new gameplay design patterns or adapt existing ones in their games, participants needed to develop unfamiliar technical processes associated with computer coding, as well as foundational digital skills related to using a desktop personal computer. See Appendix: Digital Literacy for further details. One example of a skill developed by many participants was proficiency in keyboard and mouse use. Combined with the ability to navigate internet browser tabs, this facilitated movement between computer code, game prototypes, and supporting web-based documentation. Such personal appropriation and increasing fluidity are well illustrated in Toby’s repeated, solo, incremental changes to level design, as seen in Vignette 1.a. Most participants demonstrated increased fluency, particularly in areas such as creating, uploading, and integrating graphical assets, adjusting game challenges by modifying GDP elements, and engaging in coding processes such as debugging and code patching, which is explored in later sections. In line with CHAT theory, this can be interpreted as the gradual operationalisation of actions that initially required more explicit guidance, as discussed by Leontiev [@leontiev_activity_2009].

While the use of new techniques was driven by the implementation of GDPs, the following observations reveal a complex, interdependent relationship between GDP concepts and emergent technical processes. In line with Rogoff’s understanding of personal appropriation as a bi-directional process, where the appropriation of personal knowledge is shaped by and contributes to a broader sociocultural context, participants actively contributed their interpretations of knowledge back into the communities they belonged to. In this case, the community in question was the game-making community. In this process, GDPs functioned as both conceptual tools and structured project stages, facilitating interpersonal knowledge exchange, as explored in the following example. In Vignette 5 (sections V5.a and V5.c), Madiha(p) seeks assistance from her daughter Nasrin to format and export graphical files for use in the game code project. The implementation of her chosen GDPs drives the development of these technical processes, as she must either learn them herself or draw on peer knowledge to complete the task. For instance, changing pen colours in the graphical tool is a process that Nasrin has already internalised and performs effortlessly, whereas Madiha is still deliberately working to build her competency. Nasrin has fully operationalised the process, incorporating it into her repertoire of practices. Similarly, in section V5.d, Madiha receives help from a peer, Ed, in using the cropping tool to remove redundant space at the edges of sprite characters after he playtests her game.

<!– NOTE - IS THERE ARE GOOD PLACE FOR THIS IN APPENDIX? Some examples contain processes that are linked to the language and the concepts and player experience of GDPs, for example the use of GDP language of hazards and rewards (see extract).

Other examples are more secondary where the emerging processes and adoption of language concern more to do with more general digital design, which are needed due to the process of implementing game features - which are in this case structured via GDPs. –>

<!– MOVE TO TECHNICAL IF NOT ALREADY HTERE Playtesting also helped propogate emerging practices. For example, after testing Mi’s game In the example above after comments on the jump speed Ed continues.

 Ed: How much jump speed to you have?
 Ed: Your jump speed is massive.
 Ed gives advice about tidying up the sprite outlines.
 Ed: for people with background like yours You can use the “cramping tool””
 Mark  and Ed then explain – SEE THEIR RECORDING
 So that the background is clearer.

While Ed has only just been introduced to the ability to “cramp”. He is happy and able to share this useful tool with Mi. Theme –>

Turning to the practice of code patching, a guided technical process designed to scaffold the coding process (see Glossary and Chapter 2), video evidence and observational journal notes highlight the potential of coupling code implementation with target behaviour, structured within a framework of GDPs. This patching process became an important element of documentation. Although code was provided, mistakes occurred in practice and additional customisations were introduced. An example of code patching in practice can be seen in Toby’s careful copying and pasting of different lines of code from supporting materials into his game project (see V1a).

Toby’s success in using the code patching technique was supported by the UMC based structure of the game template in line with the UMC principles explored in the previous chapter and the high level of contextualisation provided by GDPs as a guiding framework in the learning design. This is illustrated in V1 when Toby alters the imported code producing a type of programming error I refer to as a glitch. This specific error occurs when the game continues to function but exhibits an unintended effect (see V1a). The glitch triggered an initial investigation prompted Toby to seek my assistance and required an iterative process of revision and cross-referencing with the original code snippet. From this and similar observations I propose that the tight coupling between code implementation and target behaviour in this case structured within GDPs scaffolds the debugging process and can be a valuable tool for facilitators.

Additionally the key affordances of the learning design including the starting template code snippets and the resulting code patching process appear to encourage the creation of glitch errors. The data in this section is further supported by observations on the growing diversity of helping strategies in response to different types of errors discussed in Appendix Debugging. I also explain the patching process in greater depth to participants in an extract from Vignette 9 (V9a). In the commentary (V9b) I propose that noticing celebrating and exploring the sources of unintended behaviours may function as an inclusive strategy to mitigate the potentially frustrating process of debugging. Considering the bi-directional process aspects of personal appropriation can also be inferred from the interpersonal interactions explored in the following section.

GDPs used in the process of guided participation

This section examines data on the use of GDPs from the perspective of interpersonal interaction. Here, the process of being guided into planned activities or peer collaboration is exploratory, contributing to interpersonal processes that facilitate the completion of tasks. As outlined in the previous section, personal understandings of knowledge can be observed within these interpersonal interactions, particularly in exchanges between parents and children. Based on observations of video data, I describe how GDPs are employed in diverse mediational strategies. I focus on three key categories of interaction that incorporate GDPs: the use of a provided menu of GDPs and supporting documentation, the role of GDPs in project ideation and prioritisation, and their function within the division of labour.

Chapter 5 introduced my provision of a curated collection (menu) of gameplay design patterns to address the tension between participants’ choice and the need for documentation to support the technical implementation of code structures. Appendix.themeing outlines the evolution of how the sub-categories of patterns developed and the rationale guiding them. In Vignete 9, I address the whole group, describing the webpage presenting the menu of GDPs as a hub to help choose project goals and locate tutorials and code examples. “It’s almost like this is our control panel. You decide what you want to do next and we jump off from there.” In this section, I summarise data on the use of the menu of GDPs, focusing on interpersonal interactions.

Toby, in Vignette 1 (see V1.8–V1.17), engages in independent work, copying code from a snippet example of the game design pattern he selected from a graphical menu of patterns. His ability to choose and implement new features using supporting documentation enables him to take on the role of a mentor, inspiring and assisting others in adding the same GDPs to their games (see V1.b). Toby’s independence and effectiveness in this process align with existing concepts, including the use of shorter, just-in-time tutorials to reduce barriers associated with more extensive instruction-based approaches, particularly those related to literacy [@dietz_design_2021; @resnick_coding_2020].

Vignette 2 (V2.a) observes parent Susanna (p)’s use of a tutorial to address the goal of implementing her child’s chosen GDPs. Susanna, who is limited in her programming skills, leverages the concept of GDPs, particularly to access written step-by-step instructions to make progress. She prefers to avoid seeking facilitator help (see V2.b). The participants’ choice over which GDPs they tackle can create a personal connection to these goals, a process that may help reduce feelings of alienation from coding or game-making culture (see Tehillah’s positive reaction in V2.a and V11).

While the evidence supports the potential of a menu of GDPs to address the tensions between choice-based approaches and the danger of a lack of relevant scaffolding, there are some important clarifications to make at this point. Firstly, not all participants engage with this menu: a later section shows how GDPs picked up by one learner, via provided documentation (e.g., Toby), are propagated in other ways. For example, in Vignette 3 (V3.a), Ed cedes this aspect to his father in a way explored in the section below on division of labour. Secondly, there are potential issues concerning the validity of observations on the use of the GDP menu (and concepts) as navigational and organisational tools by participants, due to their nature as being introduced for that purpose. The danger here is of circular reasoning in methodology. At this early stage, this study acknowledges the potential of circular reasoning but observes the potential of GDP adoption and, in particular, the evolution of practices by participants. In addition, this process of using GDPs in this way was also discovered via an exploratory DBR approach, and thus its introduction is also significant and cannot be divorced from the aspect of participant reaction. Additionally, the potential of GDPs as a germ cell concept (as explored in Chapters 3 and 5) is explored in greater depth in the following chapter.

GDPs used to scaffold ideation and prioritisation processes

Addressing the tension between participant choice and scaffolding via menu of GDPs, my journal notes on the shift from P1 to P2, I noted that the provision of this menu of GDPs significantly decreased in time spent in the ideation phase by providing scaffolding and restricting choice. Beyond this immediate impact, this section outlines how the use of GDP concepts and supporting tools were used in ideation and project organisation, specifically: as a lingua franca, as a visual prototyping tool, and within participant gestural interaction.

Video data surfaced frequently use of GDPs terms as a lingua franca to organise and prioritise game making activity. An exchange from Vignette 3 between participants Ed and Mark shows the use of GDP concepts to help resolve a tension between a more chaotic style of working jumping from one goal to another and a parental motivation to prioritise work. The pair’s initial listing of features is a brainstorming technique using the approximate names of game design patterns (get the person animated, get an enemy in, changing the platforms, make a theme tune). The vignette analysis sees the parent overwhelmed with the child’s lack of focus on one pattern “that’s what I mean, you can’t just skip around like that.”

In Vignette 7 (see V7.a), home-based knowledge of GDP mechanics is utilised on an interpersonal plane, with Dan(p) helping Toby(c) via guided facilitation to provoke and shape new design ideas. Dan(p) draw on the game playing experiences to promote innovation in the design of the existing template: “the previous style of game was a platform (makes shape with hands) game wasn’t it? You went along and there was gravity pushing down. There are other types of games aren’t there?” The pair use their knowledge of game play patterns and genre conventions to break out of the genre constraints of starting template. Here they are charting new territory beyond the curated choices of GDPs and as such may not have vocabulary to express concepts. Both Dan and Toby make extensive use of gestures in their interaction reinforces their spoken references to GDP concepts.

In the same vignette (see V7.12-16), Toby uses the code based tilemap tool to design a maze game instead of a platformer game drawing on existing knowledge of tools and home knowledge of the target game genre to rapidly make revisions without extensive planning. This use of GDPs to allow the spacial exploration of design in a visual and intuitive way suits being mapped onto paper, or onto graphical software which allows for a similarly rapid prototyping. By way of contrast, other pairs take advantage of paper prototyping (see Appendix.prototyping). For example, Susanna(p) notices the child’s difficulty in using cursor and delete/backspace keys to edit a matrix allowing level design. The parent provides a book with grid paper to allow the child to replicate the matrix. The parent is then able to transcribe the design to the code example while engaging the child by checking she has interpreted the design correctly. The use of GDPs to support visual prototyping is also undertaken by Mark and Ed explored in more detail in Appendix.tech.prototyping

To end this section, it is of value to link this use of GDP terminology and visual prototyping techniques to existing research on the development of shared language to support joint work and guided participation. While much research on teaching coding addresses the benefits of collaborative approaches (see Chapter 2), fewer studies outline strategies to facilitate such joint attention [@brennan_scratch-ed_2009]. The work of Stahl and others [@stahl_computer-supported_2006] within the fields of technology use and collaborative learning is relevant here to highlight the importance of language development and the intersubjective interpretation of visual prototypes and gestures as tools in building mutual understanding in the kind of joint problem space we see in this study. Returning to Kynigos’s interpretation of the half-baked game as a boundary object facilitating communication [@kynigos_half-baked_2007], we can locate the diverse forms of GDPs as such boundary objects at a scope of greater granularity.

GDPs aiding the process of division of labour (1400)

Addressing division of labour on an interpersonal plane, participants worked mostly as pairs or individuals, alternating between community playtesting and pair/individual design work. Turning to the use of GDPs specifically in DoL as an organisational strategy, structuring work processes through implementing modular sub-projects in the form of GDPs can aid division of labour. GDPs feature in processes division of labour in a variety of ways: working knowledge of different types of GDPs can help participants to divide work by working on different patterns or taking on project elements within patterns.

In Vignette 3 (V3.a), Mark(p) repeatedly steers his son Ed to pick one GDP for them to carefully work through the associated documentation together, a process he later refers to in interview data as plodding . Early in that session Mark takes a significant amount of time puzzling over documentation on how to add animation to a character. This results in Ed being blocked from progressing and to address this tension child proposes dividing their labour and workig on two separate computer (see V3.9 “Why don’t you go there for a computer and you can do that?”). Ed appears to make a tactical decision allowing the father to specialise in GDPs that involve deciphering technical instructions, whilst he engages with a pattern that involves creating audio and graphical assets in a less technical, more exploratory process.

While in this case, a decision was made to work side-by-side on the same game using different computers, data uncovered other ways in which the participant divided the process of game making, in ways which uncovered traces of home collaboration practices. For example, In Vignette 2, Susanna(p) and Tehillah(c) relied on the parent to do the majority of code implementation but shared one computer. The parent took a lead on many activities but took care that they alternated between use of keyboard and mouse to give the child hands on experience when possible, particularly in level design activities and playtesting (see V2.7). In interview data (see V2.b), the parent notes “I resist the urge to fix things immediately when she struggles.” In another exchange (see), Tehillah (c) uses the name of a GDP within a request for her parent to take on a specific task within their making process, “Go on then. Key-Door person.” When the parent expresses confusion Tehillah gestures with her hands to indicate that her mother is the person she is referring to. The child appears to consider the level of complexity needed to add a new pattern into the code to be beyond her ability and thus directly delegate the task to her mother. At times Susanna(p) asked Tehillah(c) to seek help from facilitator (V2.1). On another occasion when the child appeared bored of waiting for parent to solve a code problem, she approached the facilitator to ask for help on behalf of the adult without prompting. At other times Tehillah(c) engages more peripheral activities such as watching older children playtest each others games, or observing community activity from under the table.

Madiha’s(p) family Nasrin(c) and Zidane(c) are all working on separate games on different computers. While Madiha sits next to Zidane who needs closer support, Nasrin often sits close by but next to a friend. In Vignette 5, as part of her process of building an emerging identity as a graphical asset designer (see V5.b), Madiha calls across the room to draw on Nasrin’s help to correct a design mistake. Nasrin affects reluctance in her support of her mother (see V5.a), but at other times shows that she enjoys her status of technical supporter (see V5.d). Nasrin appears reluctant to explain the technical processes she uses to help her mother:
“Madiha (to Nasrin): What are you doing? You have to tell me what you are doing so I can do it myself.” This may be driven by a desire to preserve this specialist status and utility to her mother.

Toby adopts different working arrangements dependent on which family members he attends with. While in P2 when supported by grandparents Toby had worked mostly alone (see V1), in P3, he works as a pair with his father (Dan) in closely guided practice (see V7.b). In several interchanges, the father starts as a facilitator, taking a lead from the direction of the child. As the child reaches the limits of their ability, he begins to be more directive, by asking leading questions and testing existing knowledge. Finally, in order to complete the programming or research tasks beyond the child’s knowledge, the father is more direct in instruction, directing the research and proposing a coding solution for their new game design pattern. Dan’s experience as a software engineer and volunteer at Coder Dojo (see glossary) is relevant as a fund of knowledge he draws on (see V7.a and later section).

While the context of the participants as families involved in home education makes any general claims difficult, these observations support findings in other research in this domain. For example, research shows that children have the potential to help parents as technology brokers [@correa_brokering_2015]. In joint technology work, parents can fulfil several reciprocal roles including collaborator, resource provider, learner, non-technical consultant, and emotional support [@barron_parents_2009]. Thus, in response to the creative support that parents and siblings provide, facilitators should design learning environments to facilitate these possibilities. The work of Roque provides guidance for helpers in the process to support parents to value and feel confident in these roles [@roque_im_2016] in a way which mirrors the use of helpers in this phase of my study (see Chapter 4). While these examples involve GDPs, others are explored in relation to the development of agency in the following chapter. The examples above illustrate part of some of the varied strategies to divide labour adopted by participants at times involving complex tensions in activity. For example, Madiha and Nasrin reversed the traditional helping relationship, and the child would reluctantly implement the parent’s requested technical elements of GDPs but would pointedly not explain the changes made, seemingly taking pride in knowing something that her mother didn’t.

Similarly, while Tehillah’s activity away from the screen while non-productive within the scope of technical progress, can be characterised as legitimate peripheral activity of observation of community activity [@lave_situating_1991 ; @rogoff_learning_2014]. Indeed the possibility for children to not engage in community activities is seen by Rogoff [-@rogoff_cultural_2003; -@rogoff_organization_2016] as an important characteristics in participation based models of learning.

The variety of repertoires of helping practice depends in part on the different funds of knowledge the parent has access to. Toby and Dan’s pair process is more guided and focused than many other participants and includes accessing professional documentation and exploration of computational thinking concepts. While the helping pattern of researching and accessing technical documentation is available to all pairs, due to the level of skill and experience involved, other technical processes are developed by most participants and are explored in the next section.

Use of GDPs in the cultural plane / community level of activity

Following Rogoff’s [@rogoff_observing_1995] three planes approach to analysis, the following section explores the use of GDPs at the community plane of activity. While Rogoff’s earlier analysis of activity on a cultural plane emphasised the metaphor of apprenticeship, focusing on an already existing community, her later work with Gutiérrez [@gutierrez_cultural_2003] places greater emphasis on cultural activity as dynamic. This perspective examines existing and emerging norms and repertoires, adapted from participants’ engagement in other communities and contexts.

The role of GDPs to facilitate learners to design for others

The use of GDPs, particularly during playtesting, can support the process of imagining end-user experiences. This section examines how the concept of, and experience with, implementing GDPs encouraged participants to envision the experience of end users of their games. Chapter two explored the proposition from professional and participatory design processes that design should be informed by end-user experience [@redstrom_towards_2006], as well as the challenges involved in undertaking such an “operationalization of empathy” [@surma-aho_conceptualization_2022, p.1]. From a CHAT interpretation, this process involves shifts in perspective by participants as they engage with objectives across different scopes of activity. For instance, in the vignette above, Tehillah (child) pursues a quirky design goal during her paired design work, which Susanna (parent) resists. Imagining a shift in perspective to the intended audience at a community level of interaction, the parent aims to ensure a sense of challenge for the imagined player.

Susanna shares “Must be quite hard to get through that door.” when Tehillah places the exit door high above a platform. She then continues, “It’s no fun having a game without any hazards to avoid.” Tehillah (child) seems determined to remove all hazards. “It is for me!” she counters. She may be aware of the implications for game balance but takes pleasure in this destruction of the key challenge of the game as an act of disruptive play. However, a later interaction with a peer shows that Tehillah (child) is indeed imagining the experience of the immediate audience of fellow game makers and supporting students. “I like making it frustrating. That other people find it frustrating!” Tehillah (child) notes the persistence of a student helper who pushes past her frustration to complete the game. Her remark, “If people tried hard they would get to my level,” shows her awareness that not all players will persist in the same way to reach her final level, which has only rewards and no hazards. This being a “secret, special” experience, which plays against the norms of platform game design, is thus intended to provoke player surprise.

There are other examples of how concepts of game challenge and other aspects of gameplay experience evolved through informal feedback during playtesting and served to influence peers to modify their games to increase the enjoyment of peer players. The discussion of game challenge, specifically comments about how ‘hard’ participant games were, was a particularly common interaction during playtesting. Vignette.challenge outlines a key interaction which demonstrates norming behaviour towards Madiha(p) who has concentrated on the graphics of her game to the detriment of the level of challenges. In particular, the controls of the game are frustrating. The vignette shows varied attempts to influence Madiha to change the game variables to make the gameplay less frustrating. They praise the look of the game but offer feedback on the experience of the game mechanic of jumping. While the players do not tell Madiha directly to change the game, these comments appear to direct the direction of the design to comply with an emerging community norm of how a player jumps should feel, stemming from the participants’ feedback on the feeling of lack of control over the player’s character in the game. These behaviours are some of the informal norming behaviours that are less directive, seen in the work of Rogoff and colleagues, as explored in the literature review [@rogoff_cultural_2003].

The examples explored above serve to highlight two dimensions of the use of GDP concepts to facilitate the process of designing for others. The first is the influence of making in a cultural setting where regular playtesting by peers occurs on the making process. The second is through either direct advice by pair partners and peers in playtesting to imagining others’ user experience, or indirectly by gameplay feedback or suggesting alterations to GDP implementations. This research is in line with other studies which explore the potential of tangible, public digital products as both a motivating and focusing factor in computer-supported collaborative learning [@xambo_experience_2017; @fields_programmers_2015]. The results here help address a deficit of results in this area [@silva_computer-supported_2020].

GDPs can facilitate the use of wider funds of knowledge and interest

GDPs can allow participants to share and explore funds of knowledge and interest in the emerging learning community. One premise driving my exploration of the use of gameplay features in pedagogy is that the tacit knowledge of gaming conventions among most family members is extensive, even if they are not avid gamers, due to the extensive influence of video game culture in mainstream culture, including contexts of family life [@ito_hanging_2010; @livingstone_digital_2018], particularly retro gaming [@heineman2014public]. As such, the process of facilitating ways to surface and work with such tacit knowledge aligns with Moll’s concept of funds of knowledge, and, potentially, funds of identity [@fasso_identity_2020; @esteban-guitart_funds_2014]. Within a CHAT framework, these funds of identity and knowledge can be seen as tools that facilitate the transfer of potentially useful concepts and practices across the boundaries between activity systems, in this case, between home activity and that happening in this game-making community. The associated inclusive benefits of working with participants’ home interests are explored by Barron [@barron_conceptualizing_2010; @barron_interest_2006-1] and similar work by Gutiérrez on third spaces [@gutierrez_developing_2008]. Existing research outlines the motivations for social making incorporating gaming cultural elements [@ito_hanging_2010; @gee_what_2003] and the ability to make personalised game assets and narratives, which sustain engagement in digital making projects [@sefton-green_mapping_2013].

In the last chapter, I outlined processes facilitating participants in creating and incorporating graphical, audio assets, and narrative elements into their games, and, referencing Appendix.tech.gameframework, briefly outlined how these elements were themed as Game Polish items within a typology of GDPs, which aligned with the MDA (mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics) game element framework explored in Chapter 2. The different types of GDPs available to participants to choose from in the menu of GDP documentation and code snippets allowed for a choice in participant making paths, enabling alignment with home interests. This point is well illustrated via the domain of polish/aesthetics in Vignette 5, where Madiha and Nasrin show identification with the graphical-making process and the process of bringing that aspect of creativity into their games. Beyond their internal family interaction, they share this artistic flair and attention to detail with the emerging learning community. Another pair Clive and Pearl, the grandparents of Toby, included a narrative message at the start of their game surfacing the interest and expertise of the family as beekeepers (see V6). This sparked interesting conversations with other participants.

In addition to issues of aesthetics, home knowledge of game mechanics and dynamics (the M and D of the MDA framework) also contributed to emerging cultural repertoires. As explored in the previous section, Vignette 4 gives several examples of participant feedback on the dynamics of Madiha’s game in the level of the challenge experienced by players. Peers shared their experience of what makes a good game to bear in the feedback they shared. Turning to the area game mechanics, In see V1.b Bertie(c) comments on Toby(c)’s game, which has a dominant game experience of timed jumping: “It’s like parkour in Minecraft but timed. It’s like playing the game Wipeout. Have you ever played Wipeout?”. Parkour in Minecraft and Wipeout are both game experiences whose main gameplay mechanic is about judging jumps and landing accurately. Bertie makes links to his existing experience of games, making comparisons between Toby’s game, commercial games, and his own. In doing so, Bertie is able to show his knowledge and analysis of gameplay patterns. Additionally, the guidance of Dan(p) for Toby(c) explored above in Vignette 7, saw the parent explicitly drawing out the child’s home knowledge of games to enable an exploration of a different set of game mechanics. Thus, the tacit knowledge of GDPs of children and adults as game players serves them in knowledge-brokers roles in the process of feeding back and ideation [@wenger_communities_1998].

Thus observations from video data in this study support existing research which highlight the motivating potential of incorporating home interests in games, coding and media projects [@resnick_mothers_2012; @papert_mindstorms:_1980]. They also support findings of other research on the use of funds of knowledge and interest in digital projects as motivating factors and as a way to overcome barriers to alien cultures [@gutierrez_learning_2019-1; @moje2001maestro]. This research also aligns with PBL research that indicates that allowing participants to incorporate home interests can be highly motivating both in initial stages [@swirski_does_2018-1; @penuel_connecting_2022], and to sustain activity and overcome problems in order to share the personalised object created [@barron_interest_2006]. I also propose that this use of the MDA framework as a way of providing varied learning pathways has potential to aid facilitators to align with existing inclusive pedagogy, a point I explore in more detail in the discussion section.

Evolution and propagation of GDPs concepts during playtesting

Within the emerging idioculture of the game-making sessions, and during playtesting in particular, the implementation of popular or novel GDPs by participant pairs or individuals is often spread through peer activity. Both documented (those part of provided resources) and novel GDPs (those introduced by participants) were transmitted between participants, enriching the games of participants. At times, participants were influenced by playing the games of others, and at times, they would request the direct help of peers to implement GDPs in their own games.

As the process of playtesting emerged, community norms began to develop, some of which were influenced by home experience of game playing. Vignette 4 (V4.a) outlines the community norming of Madiha(p)’s game to conform to expected standards of a platform game. In Vignette 1B, Toby’s work adding 21 levels to his game is noticed by Bertie who then asks Toby, “Can you show me how you add more levels onto yours?” The full exchange shows an example of the propagation of GDPs emerging from the process of community playtesting through a direct request. It is possible that Bertie’s request to Toby is prompted by Bertie noticing Toby helping Nasrin and Harper add levels to their games. Toby’s emerging role as a specialist that the community can draw on for practical help, and similar examples (see also that of Nasrin in Vignette 5), were welcomed by me as a way to reduce dependence on myself as a facilitator, or to provide an alternative to the instruction-based support documents.

In addition to the propagation of GDPs offered in the menu of supporting documentation, other gameplay patterns and related design concepts emerged organically from the community. The concept of a safe zone in the game of Pearl and Clive arrived as a direct result of adding many moving enemies in a way that it became essential for players to quickly identify and use ‘safe zones’ where enemies did not reach. As such, this concept, not used in any facilitator provided resources, became used frequently in the playtesting of that game.

In another example, Tehillah’s concept of a level that eschews challenge and offers only rewards emerged through playful experimentation (see Vignette 2). Susanna(p)’s alarm at the child’s deletion of all elements of hazard shows she has too keen a sense of game balance to ensure a sense of challenge for the imagined player. “It’s no fun having a game without any hazards to avoid.” The child seems determined to remove all hazards. My understanding is that she is also aware of implications for game balance but is taking pleasure in this seeming destruction of the key challenge of the game as an act of disruptive play. Other players also created impossible or overly easy game levels. They seem to take pleasure from ignoring concepts of what should be done to maintain game balance and from the sense of shock from their current audience her parent. Going against this convention is a type of playful destruction in this context. The process mirrors play theory concept of playing against the game or dark play [@sutton-smith_ambiguity_2001].

These novel concepts may have emerged spontaneously or have a source in part from participants’ funds of gaming knowledge. In either case, once a concept like that of safe zone enters the linguistic and coding repertoire of this community of game makers, it facilitates propagation based on the interest of other participants.

The process of emergence of novel repertoires which drew on GDP concepts, and wider, existing practice aligned with the motivations of this study. Therefore to try to support their development I introduced some additional social missions described in Chapter 5 and described in more detail in Appendix.makertypes. Paralleling Bartle’s player types [@schneider_analysis_2016], the concept of maker types addressed observations of the varied sub-goals which emerged in playtesting. Recalling the barriers to participation explored in Chapter 2, my rationale for exploring maker types with participants was to promote awareness of pluralistic programming process [@papert_epistemological_1990], and a message that when you are learning something novel and challenging, there is value in incorporating your existing working preferences and techniques in the process. Rather than proposing that these styles make up a rigid typology to be replicated in other settings, instead, in line with Gutierrez and Rogoff [-@gutierrez_cultural_2003, p.20] , that the process of co-constructing understanding and communication about learning styles can “support the changing nature of participation and the forms of assistance provided in joint activity.”

Thus, similar to the way tools were modified to provide new affordances for participants, in P3 I began to encourage these processes by introducing a drama process incorporating social side-missions to augment the affordances of the playtesting environment. The process of exploring identity via side missions in this way surfaced the cheekiness of some young people and the pleasure they took in demonstrating their playful mischievousness. Many of the social missions encouraged activity outside of strictly productive design activities: for example, the lively discussion about game playing in response to the mission to find out the favourite games of 3 other people. In observations of video data, I was struck by the high degree of flexibility and variation present in participant behaviour. In the following section I begin an analysis of other emerging characteristics.

Discussion

Addressing the use of GDPs in relation to theoretical understandings of processes of mediation and incorporation in repertoires of practice

This section begins an interpretation of the diverse roles of GDPs in the game-making activity using CHAT concepts, with this analysis continuing in the following chapter. Addressing GDPs as a mediational tool, Chapter 5 outlined design decisions, and this chapter explores the impact. For example, the uses of the quick-start activities, tutorials, and code snippets as supporting tools, if viewed in isolation, can be seen as a more straightforward, triangular form of subject, tool, and object mediation (see Chapter 4 diagram). This chapter, along with the evolution of the learning design, exposed tensions where existing mediational strategies or tools were insufficient, and thus innovative forms of mediation were needed. Elements of the innovation in the toolset of learning design, based on the emerging needs of the participants explored in this and the previous chapter, exemplify the development of new mediational strategies and tools. In line with Sannino [@sannino_transformative_2022], this study frames such innovation within CHAT as transformational agency, a discussion of which forms a significant part of the following chapter.

By way of contrast, Gutiérrez’s [@gutierrez_developing_2008] focus on the movement of identity between settings’ repertoires of practice draws on the importance of a wider cultural focus of the learning process, or the “cultural mediation of thinking” (Moll, 1998), cited in [@digiacomo_seven_2017] p.44. Gutiérrez sees a role for facilitators to facilitate this via learning design. In this chapter, the last section examining activity on the cultural plane exposed elements of transfer between different activity systems, supporting Gutiérrez’s [@gutierrez_developing_2008] perspective regarding the importance of transcending borders and linguistic practices between sites of learning.

The examples in this chapter show the importance of GDPs as a lingua franca, as a mediational strategy to facilitate these kinds of flexible, responsive collaboration. The process of playtesting often served as a facilitative medium for a shared language and idioculture to emerge and, as such, became a significant part of the pedagogy of the learning design. The use of GDPs in design and in community interaction became integrated with other home and technical practices into an idioculture [@cole_design-based_2016]: a local, non-geographical, non-demographic community where culture emerges via valued behaviours [@lecusay_telementoring_2015]. This chapter has demonstrated that these behaviours could be undertaken in many ways, including those requiring little commitment. For example, even if participants only noticed the use of GDPs and used approximate terminology to comment on them during playtesting, this form of activity can be seen as legitimate peripheral participation [@lave_situated_1991; @guzdial_imagineering_2006], and thus a helpful practice contributing to the emerging ecosystem of the learning community.

Observations on emerging design practices

The cultural section above identified the development and the value of flexible design processes in a way which invites discussion on how best to conceptualise these flexible approaches. Firstly, it is notable to make the flow theory in my guiding motivations in terms of participant experience [@perttula_flow_2017]. As a facilitator, my design decisions were often guided by the desire to not detract from participant experience of flow, and thus their coding fluency and engagement in and identification with the overall game-making process. This section synthesises my observations on video data and my own journal reflections on this topic of designing for flow. Flow is a highly subjective experience, and as such, there is a danger that I privilege my own interests in this analysis, and a tendency that I reflect on in the concluding chapter. Beyond fluidity, I now identify and explore other characteristics of the emerging design practices and potential strategies to support them. These include: a flexible approach to design stages, varied forms of incorporation of external repertoires, and a tension between choice of participant pathway and creative restrictions in the learning design.

<!– - flexibility in design stage, jumping about in design cycles, rapidly responding to Feedback

Varied forms of identity incorporation via division of labour, and making styles via incorporation of funds of knowledge, home interests
via choice of patterns in the MENU
But restrictions on the genre and the template –>

Observations of participant design behaviour did not align with common design thinking concepts or advocated in design cycle frameworks [@resnick_all_2007; @winarno_steps_2020-1; @dam_5_2024] as I initially thought might be the case. The stages were instead fragmented and sometimes happened in parallel. In many interactions, I observed improvisational approaches which incorporated ideation, planning, implementation, and testing in the space of a minute or so. As typified in vignette 1 and 5, some younger participants, in particular, developed impressively fluid practices, demonstrating extremely rapid shifts between code editing, game testing, authoring assets in online tools, and migrating files, often while talking with peers. Some older participants also showed rapid, responsive creativity. Grandad Clive quickly incorporated a boost to player health after a level after being given feedback during playtesting. If I had encouraged participants to follow prescribed design stages, this may have restricted this flexibility in practice [@kuby_rhizomatic_2016].

In Vignette 4 (see 4.c in particular), we see Ed(c) break out of the more restrictive approach of plodding that Mark(p) advocated for to engage in experimental, improvised design processes with no clear end goal. Mark (p) later joins in Ed(c)’s exploration of sound-making software. They start a process of tinkering and messing about with the capability of music-making tools in a way that spurs creativity. In this case, the joint improvised process sparks a new proposal to incorporate the two soundtracks they create in distinct levels.
Other pairs often adopted a similar spirit of collaborative improvisation. In V7 Dan(p) makes a suggestion - “Use paper to design?” - to which Toby(c) replies, “I’m just going with it.” These examples and many observations in this chapter show a variety of ways that home interests, division of labour, and varied repertoires from other activity systems are incorporated into new practices.

Given the disparate nature of the features of designed and emerging pedagogy, it is of value to address ways of conceptualise the overall learning process. While the chaotic directions possible in design evoke a rhizomatic approach to learning [@biffi_chasing_2017-1; @de_freitas_classroom_2012; @cormier2008rhizomatic], I concur with Biffi et al [ @biffi_chasing_2017-1, p. 972] who identify significant competencies required which are not well-aligned with the age group of this context. While supporting a flexible learner pathway is vital to this approach, the value of restrictions to creativity are also important here. The restricted genre, pixel art format and templated approach act not only as technical scaffolds but also aligns with research on the value of constraints in facilitating rapid creative improvisation in the areas of music and drama. The domains of programming, game jams and hackathons also use constraints in a similar way [@gabler2005prototype]. Thus, I now explore the tools, process and the community in this study mutually encourage an flexible approach often referred to as jamming. As explored in Chapter 2 existing research suggests that Game Jams can be profitably used in education contexts [@aurava_game_2021], although there is no agreement on the characteristics game jam pedagogy, and scant guidance on how to address potentially problematic issues (list these),

The characteristics described above offer a contribution to the literature on Game Jam pedagogy and learning design of this study offers greater scaffolding to the process to facilitate the process of jamming as a way of encouraging co-development of practices and making styles as proposed by Gutiérrez and Rogoff [@gutierrez_cultural_2003]. The characteristics of the design process outline above can be located in the process of jamming in a musical context. For example a song jam is an introduced, familiar framework restricted in that it based on a familiar popular song, within a template of a recognisable genre. However, improvisation and bringing your own style to the process is welcomed. Furthermore, this process is augmented by the group element of the musical jam process where makers pick up techniques from other makers in the group. The value of such metaphors on group coding practice, in particular to explore agency is continued in Chapter 7.

Conclusion

On a theoretical plane, this chapter has outlined the evolving use of GDPs as a meditational strategy to develop coding repertoires that are often shared. CHAT frames diverse use of shared resources and concepts, in this case GDPs, as meditational strategies which can involved into repertoires of practice [@lecusay_telementoring_2015; @gutierrez_learning_2019-1]. On a cultural plane, using GDPs can aid the propagation of technical and social processes game making practices within an emerging community of learners. GDPs served both researchers and participants by providing a common language to clarify first learner expression and researcher’s analysis of gameplay experience.

The observations of this chapter show the advantages of GDP as an relatable design framework, occupying a the space between too concrete to be repeated and too theoretical to be grasped by novice game makers. An exploration of this aspect follows in the next chapter. In addition, the framing of learning as participation with community repertoires, is explored in the next chapter in relation to participant agency.

MOVED FROM INTRODUCTION

MOVED FROM GUIDED PARTICIPATION

MOVED FROM DISCUSSION A tension in use of norming practices and participant choice?

Future work on abstraction, layers of abstraction GDPs and the MDA framework

Move to conclusion or appendix? - appendix for now?

Levels of abstraction and shifting perspectives also exist in formal analysis of game design frameworks [Salen, and MDA]. In the theoretical underpinning, Aesthetics are the first experience of the user, and the designer most closely aligned with mechanics. Could awareness of this their shifts in perspective in relation to this MDA framework be helpful to novices.

Could link between the MDA framework and main areas of GDPs can be used to deepen a possibly profitable connection to professional design lenses theory practices?

This learning design could be a good base to use to answer those questions.

MOVE FROM cH 7 - ANY SPACE HERE?

Impact of Side Missions and Maker Types on playtesting behaviours

Reflection on impact on my design process

START WITH A NARRATIVE? My role as a learning designer under went some significant evolution. As an example the quick start activities created by PGCE students were much more directive than I initially proposed in P1. It is not that the structuring was antithetical to my approach, more that the area was unfamiliar in terms of common heuristics, and the interweaving of gameplay features and underlying code structures.

Observations of and reflections on playtesting in p2, showed that participants still engendered a diversity of experience, from these shared beginnings.

An additional reflection on design is that the playtesting of participants revealed evidence of different motivations driving activity in game making sessions.

Limitations of observations and careful statements of potential

It is important to highlight several aspects of the limitation of the exploration of maker types and side missions designed to support them.

This work is limited, as are other observations by the limited number of participants,. It is also perhaps guided by my own motivations as a researcher to investigate more messy approaches to learning.

However, given the potential of my observations and the link with existing research in other domains. It is reasonable to propose the processes outlines as a potentially fruitful area for further research. I explore potential dimensions of that research in the concluding chapter.

MoE being one of those directions.

Emerging use of narratives and graphics which drawing on home funds of knowledge - AVOID OVERLAP AND CHANGE FOCUS TO AGENCY FROM START

NOT REALLY ONLY TO DO WITH PLAYTESTING.

RECAP WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLORED, In the previous chapter,

While the potential to add graphics was a core affordence of the starting processes of the templated game, the process of designing and sharing and the peer commentary on the process emergered as the sessions evolved.

The literature review outlined the potential of home interests as funds of knowledge, especially informal learning. This learning design provided participants with different ways to input and explore their home interests in the narrative and graphical elements of their created games. For example the choice of game characters allowed the expression of identity. Other designed elements for example audio and graphical effects or written messages added to the overall aesthetic or polish of the game.

Video evidence indicated that conflicts involved between learner expectations and their technical abilities are helped by the use of the starting template. The constraints of provided game elements and implied narrative structure of the template accelerated the initial creative process.

One pair Clive and Pearl, the grandparents of Toby, included a narrative message at the start of their game. This process surfaced the expertise of the family as beekeepers, sparking interesting conversations with other participants.

 var starttext = "This is a game which pits a honey bee against a swarm of Asian hornets,  which are alien invaders attacking bee  hives in the UK and which beekeepers are trying to stop spreading  here. Try to guide the bee to collect all the flowers without being caught by the hornets.
 Use the arrow keys to move the bee. Press return to START.";

In another example, Mark and Ed designed a game around the character of a train driver that needed to collect coal. In subsequent post course interview Mark describes the impact of the child feeling like they could bring their own identity and interest into the project. “I know just your eyes lit up when you realised you could expand your interests into gaming.” See Appendix 4.x (Mark and Ed working with home interests)

MOVE LATER/ JUST A SIGNPOST TO LATER - PARK, FOR NOW?

It is of value to create spaces to leverage the potential of in-between moments for participants - playtesting or non-productive

The process of swapping graphical assets used a shared Piskel gallery and games area which served to keep individuals informed in directly of progress being made, and to spark curiosity in the creations of others.

In addition, I observed that navigating these essential but non-creative tasks in a collaborative and playful way can reduce learner anxiety and help maintain a positive affect to the overall creative digital process. This observation is supported by an example in the next chapter available in appendix 5.x - an extract of which is included below.

In summary, it is of value to create spaces to leverage the potential of these in-between moments for participants. ALSO TRUE OF PLAYTESTING

The potential impact on agency is as follows; If these tasks can be seen as more than mere barriers to production, and therefore to be designed out to increase instrumental agency, then there is potential to increase relational agency through flexible divisions of labour that allow the incorp### Implications for practitioners - MOVE LATER?

Returning to issues of inclusive approaches to pedagogy, the findings of this chapter resonates with Papert and Turkle’s celebration of the process of concrete tinkering. They also suggest that it is potentially augmented, in terms of wider accessibility, with the use of design patterns as a germ cell concept. This approach is flexible and potentially responsive whilst still retaining a unifying pedagogical approach.

In many of the outlined uses of GDPs in chapter we can see processes at play that help bridge shifts in goals between activity systems and navigation between one sub-goal and the next. Any other analysis on the part of the participant can wait until the process becomes more familiar.

This approach is aligned to inductive research processes. Finding useful abstractions only after immersing ones-self in the detail. Previously abstract concepts or processes become concrete through familiarisation via direct use and indirect observations through community participation.oration of home roles in to this new learning space. Thus a potential affordance to find identify and specialism here.

Implications for practitioners - MOVE LATER?

A thought on reflection

FIND A SPACE FOR THIS??? Addressing a separate aspect of reflection, in P2, I guided supporting student facilitators to ask what patterns participants were currently working on or had recently completed as a way of provoking informal reflection on project progress. Additionally in P3, GDPs were prominent in end of session reflections (see Vignette 10)

6. The Use of Gameplay Design Patterns "It’s like a project in itself, really"