Findings: Game Design Patterns

Findings: Game Design Patterns

Introduction

In the previous chapter, I outlined the evolution of tool use across the project, emphasising emerging tensions in activity. One key outcome of this process was the role of gameplay design patterns (GDPs), which initially emerged through participant suggestions in P1 and were subsequently integrated into a range of scaffolding strategies. These included quick-start activities, instructional tutorials, and code snippet examples, providing graded steps into game-making practice.

This chapter shifts focus to the perspectives of participants, using recorded video data and transcript analysis to interpret their varied uses and adaptations of GDPs. In doing so, it addresses RQ2: How can the use of a collection of game design patterns support CGD&P, in particular in relation to abstract and concrete dimensions of existing pedagogies? While software design patterns typically group a description of intended behaviour with a suggested structural solution, often accompanied by worked code examples (see Chapter 2), their educational application remains under-explored. Existing studies have considered game design patterns as tools for co-design [@eriksson_using_2019] or as scaffolds for simulation-based transfer of conceptual knowledge [@repenning_scalable_2015; @basawapatna_using_2010]. However, little research has examined their potential to support emerging communities of text-based game creators, particularly in overcoming structural and cultural barriers to creative coding. This chapter addresses that gap.

To support the analytical process of this chapter, GDPs are here framed as a form of germ cell, a concept drawn from activity theory to describe a unit of practice that holds the potential for expansive transformation [@blunden_collaborative_2014]. In this context, GDPs function as small but generative design elements that can be reappropriated, extended, and combined in ways that support both individual learning and wider shifts in community activity. Their varied use by participants, and their role in shaping trajectories of action and interaction, are explored through observational and transcript-based data.

To interrogate the varied use of GDPs, Rogoff’s three planes of analysis (personal, interpersonal, and cultural) are used. This framework informs the structure of this chapter. It begins by examining the role of GDPs in individual appropriation of key game-making practices. It then moves to examine their interpersonal use within shared documentation, guided participation, and evolving division of labour. Finally, it considers the cultural dimensions of GDP use, including the propagation of patterns, norming of community practices, and the embedding of cultural repertoires. A discussion section follows, connecting these findings to existing research and conceptual debates.

Recapping the framing of GDPs within activity theory concepts

Activity theory sees the object of activity as a complex construct: in this case, it includes digital, physical, and conceptual elements. It includes the use of software tools to develop code and assets, physical computers for coding, and the varied motivations of participants. The role of game design patterns within the overall activity can be understood as both a design goal to be implemented and a mediational strategy for learning and participation.

In this chapter, as explored in Chapters 3 and 4, I analyse the use of GDPs within both a wider scope of activity systems where participants operate as collective subjects, and at a smaller scope where pairs or individuals are the subjects of activity. However, even within this smaller scope, the object of activity remains complex. To provide additional clarity, the action of implementing a game design pattern is also treated as an important unit of analysis. Participants are focused on implementing or adapting a design pattern in their own game. This allows for analytical clarity and supports the argument that GDPs served not only as pedagogical scaffolds but also as conceptual anchors for the intervention’s iterative development.

The analysis that follows is organised using Rogoff’s three planes of analysis [@rogoff_observing_1995] ¹. This chapter provides evidence and analysis of how GDPs function across these planes, acting as mediational tools that support individual game-making ability, shared practice, and broader community development. Each theme is developed in turn in sections that begin with examples from participant activity ², followed by further analysis and discussion.

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

Kafai and Burke’s review [-@kafai_constructionist_2015] notes the greater number of studies focus on personal dimensions of learning programming and curricular knowledge compared to the deficit regarding social and cultural aspects. Personal appropriation is described in of Kafai and Burke’s [-@kafai_constructionist_2015, p.4] review of CGD&P as “knowledge appropriation and transformation that is instantiated in the process of making games”. Rogoff’s interpretation of personal appropriation is more complex communicating the bi-directional nature of the process where individual interpretations of community gained knowledge is remediated and fed back into the community. The evolving learning design process resulted in activities which align well with the exploration of computational thinking, systems concepts and other computing concepts and procedures.

Acknowledging the broad coverage of existing research covering this aspect of CGD&P, this section is limited in scope and aims to contribute through a narrow focus on code patching and subsequent debugging, and the development of digital literacy skills. I have chosen these areas as there were a subject of several observations provoked by the innovative characteristics of the learning design of this research.

Addressing digital and web literacies first, to integrate new gameplay design patterns or adapt existing ones in their games, participants needed to develop foundational digital skills related to using a desktop personal computer and use of internet browser and online tool ( see Chapter 1 and Appendix C.dliteracy). The the following vignette extract features a mother Madiha and daughter Nasrin ³.

Madiha has just finished created a pixel art sprite of an alien and comment, "We’re finished. Right what’s next? Now I’m an expert pixel? Now I have to figure out how to get it in there don’t I? Without losing it I’ll be very upset." Madiha's emotional investment in her creative prompts Sonia, a fellow parent, to comment: "Have you saved it?" Unsure of how to transfer the image from the online image editor the glitch coding environment, Madiha seeks assistance from her daughter:   

Madiha: Nasrin! Nasrin! Nasrin! Do you know how to get it in the game?
Nasrin: Oh my god!
Madiha: Well . First of all save it to the gallery. How do you save it? Ah there you are. Save it. Is it saved? Right now export it.
Nasrin: Do you even know what export means?
Madiha: I know what export means!
Nasrin: Ok then, smarty-pants.

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

Madiha has just finished created a pixel art sprite of an alien and comment, "We’re finished. Right what’s next? Now I’m an expert pixel? Now I have to figure out how to get it in there don’t I? Without losing it I’ll be very upset." Madiha's emotional investment in her creative prompts Sonia, a fellow parent, to comment: "Have you saved it?" Unsure of how to transfer the image from the online image editor the glitch coding environment, Madiha seeks assistance from her daughter:   

Madiha: Nasrin! Nasrin! Nasrin! Do you know how to get it in the game?
Nasrin: Oh my god!
Madiha: Well . First of all save it to the gallery. How do you save it? Ah there you are. Save it. Is it saved? Right now export it.
Nasrin: Do you even know what export means?
Madiha: I know what export means!
Nasrin: Ok then, smarty-pants.

The implementation by Madiha of the GDP of adding a new hazard element into her game drives the development of these technical processes, and facilitates a process of accessing help to do so. Thus, in this process, GDPs functioned as both motivational and conceptual tools facilitating the application of technical processes. More broadly, video data showed, participants developing fluency in areas such as browser tab use, creating, uploading, and integrating graphical and audio assets, and proficiency in keyboard and mouse use for text manipulation ⁴.

This section now turns to the role of GDPs in relation to the practice of code patching and tactical responses to coding errors. Code patching is a professional technical process to scaffold the application of new features in computer programming ⁵. This patching process became an important technique of the learning design and supporting resources documentation. The following extract from Vignette 1 shows an example of code patching in practice ⁶.

Toby finishes playtesting and navigates to the page containing a menu of game design patterns [^ggcm]. He navigates to a code snippet project illustrating a game mechanic of a moving enemy. He takes time to examine the start of code carefully. Toby then clicks on the tab of his own game code and examines how it is different. He returns to the example code and scrolls down and examines the code needed to patch into his game and after hesitation he returns to copy the full code needed from the example. He then navigates to the same section of his own code project template. Carefully pasting the code into the right area and check the result, correctly showing a new enemy moving back and forth horizontally. Toby playtests his game and struggles to get past this new enemy. He tentatively alters parameters of the code and seemingly inadvertently changes the direction of the  movement of the hazard to vertical. He laughs and comments to his family: "Mine's just going up and down! Granny! I've got mine to up and down." Later iterations to his code over the next 30 minutes include changes to allow different moving enemies for each level, and changes to the movement parameters of the enemy of level 2 (see Vignette 1 for more detail).

Toby shows great increasing fluidity in the process of navigation of between documentation, code and game preview windows. By way of contrast his use of supporting documentation to undertake the code patching process is still hesitant and intentional. Debugging is both motivated and facilitated by the participants strong understanding driven of what the desired GDP should provoke in the target behaviour of the games. The need to get both the starting and ending position of the movement of the imported enemy provokes several iterations of debugging ⁷. Although both starting template code and additional snippet based code was provided, mistakes occurred due to errors in placement and in making additional customisations, as in the example above. The process of code patching process often provoked errors within resulting game output in the form of glitches ⁸. In my facilitator role, when this happened, I tried to mobilise participants existing knowledge of their chosen GDP behaviour compared with the erroneous behaviour of the glitch, sometimes using humour when pointing out the glitch within this process as a strategy to mitigate the potentially frustrating process of debugging.

Turning to a wider analysis of the process of personal appropriation of knowledge within the game making process, I was inspired by the the process and rationale of Bevan and Petrich’s [-@bevan_learning_2015; -@petrich_it_2013] work who created a map of learning dimensions to support facilitation of seemingly chaotic tinkering and making processes in museum contexts. During data analysis, the process of attempting a systematic coding scheme resulted in a growing list of curricular, conceptual and practical constructs. While this list was not used fo systematic coding as explained in Chapter for, I returned to it in later phases of the design process⁹, when looking to adapt this learning design to a more formal environment in mind. This list formed the basis for a map of curriculum-oriented concepts that suited exploration via in the game making process described in this research. It is included here as Table 6.x.¹⁰

Computational Thinking	Coding Concepts	Systems Patterns	Design and Technical Practices
Abstraction	Sequences	Systems Elements	Goal Setting
Decomposition	Variables	Systems Dynamics	Being Incremental and Iterative
Pattern Recognition	Logic	Reinforcing Feedback Loops	Developing Vocabulary
Algorithmic Thinking	Loops	Balancing Feedback Loops	Web Literacy (as a subset of digital literacy) [^moz]
	Arrays		Code patching
	Creating Functions		Version Control
	Change Listener		Debugging
	Input Event		Reusing and Remixing

Table 6.x. Learning dimensions facilitated by this study’s game making process

The map of learning dimensions above includes a balance of skills, concrete and more abstract aspects of coding concepts ¹¹. The creation of a provision of these learning dimensions aims as a supporting resource aimed to help future teachers and facilitors locate curricular value within the game making process and to to address tensions in the integration of concepts into an complex making process. The approach specifically addresses a paradox common in application project-based approaches in more formal settings, the tension between the an exploratory learning approach and a possibility or need to align with curricular concepts [@hoyles_pedagogy_1992]. I propose that this tension, named the play paradox by Hoyles and colleagues [-@hoyles_pedagogy_1992], can be addressed by orienting the learning map to follow a leading activity of the learning design aligned with the goals of the participants, in this case to add GDPs to the game.

However, in this informal learning context, the overall motivation of participants was on having fun while making an engaging game together rather than explicitly developing to knowledge linked to the computing curriculum, reflected in the overall orientation of this thesis. In this context, the play paradox is less extreme and my approach to the learning design, facilitation and to the methodology of this study reflects this.

In summary, this section has provided a selected overview of examples of the personal appropriation of knowledge and processes being driven by the implementation of GDPs. The observations reveal a complex, interdependent relationship between GDP concepts and emergent technical processes. The map of learning dimensions that emerged from inductive and deductive stages of thematic analysis, presented in Table 6.x, contains indications of tensions related to abstract and concrete aspects of knowledge within the implementation of GDPs. These tensions are beyond the remit of this section but are explored in Chapter 7.

<!– 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 –>

GDPs used in the process of guided participation

This section explores how GDPs feature in interpersonal interactions, particularly as tools that support guided participation in collaborative tasks. Drawing on video data, I examine how GDPs mediate shared activity, especially in exchanges between children and parents. Three categories are highlighted: the use of the provided GDP menu and documentation, GDPs as tools for project ideation and prioritisation, and their role in shaping the division of labour.

In this section, I outline findings on the use of GDPs within the group to mediate the process of accessing and using project documentation. Chapter 5 described the introduction 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.

The following extract from Vignette 2 concerns a family that had taken a methodical approach to accessing documentation. In the minutes leading up to the extract, Susanna (parent) was attempting to implement a key and door mechanic to the game. Meanwhile, Tehillah (child), unable to do such coding or debugging, expressed boredom ¹². Susanna(p) ¹³ had been following the step-by-step written instructions but when she was unable to progress, she sent Tehillah(c) to get my help. I then worked closely with the parent to identify a syntax problem in the code.

Dialogue	Activity
Susanna(p): Thank you. Did you see Tehillah? Tehillah(c): Did it do it? Susanna: Yes	Mick has just ceded computer to Susanna after solving a problem which had occurred due to
Susanna: I’ll reload it. Here you go	Susanna presses refresh key to reload the game
Tehillah: (Laughs)	Tehillah moves laptop to point towards her and takes over using the keyboard
Tehillah: (Makes excited cat noise)	Tehillah uses arrow keys to control the game and checks if player progression to level 2 is working. She reaches level 2, where there is no door or key.
Tehillah: We need a door in this one. I want to make more levels now. So you can put lots of doors and lots of keys. (in a rhythmic voice) Key Door Key Door Key Door (in a sing song voice) Key Door Level. Key Door Level, Key Door Level
	Susanna moves computer back to take over the keyboard. She changes browser tab and navigates to the code section for level and component design.
S: Well. Where are you going to put your door in level two? Do you want to change the layout at all?	Susanna gestures to screen
Tehillah: What’s door? Susanna: d Tehillah: Ok	Susanna doesn’t move the laptop but gets closer to take over the keyboard
Tehillah: d. Door right there.	Tehillah inserts a “d” in an array high above a platform
Susanna: And where’s the key going? Must be quite hard to get to that door. Key is K

Table 6.x – Extract of Vignette 2 showing interpersonal interaction and documentation use. Vignette 2 follows the parent Susanna’s use of a tutorial to address the goal of implementing her child’s chosen GDPs. Susanna is limited in her programming skills but avoids seeking facilitator or peer help¹⁴. As such, she independently accesses written step-by-step instructions as a preferred working approach. Susanna leads the process of implementing code changes for patterns chosen by her daughter¹⁵. In this way, the pair are able to use the concept of the key and door pattern to help coordinate their project organisation and access relevant documentation. To prioritise participant engagement, supporting documentation avoided a principles-first instruction approach (either to the whole group or to individuals). The use of shorter, just-in-time tutorials was in response to barriers associated with more extensive instruction-based approaches, particularly those related to literacy [@dietz_design_2021; @resnick_coding_2020].

This choice over which pattern to implement appears to have a positive impact on affect, both in the context of this vignette and more generally. Tehillah(c)’s choice over which GDPs to tackle has helped create a personal connection to the game. Her positive reaction in the vignette above, including the naming and rhythmical chanting of “key” and “door,” indicates affective engagement closely tied to her interaction with the GDP concept. There is also evidence of affective engagement in Toby’s laughter and calling out to his Granny when getting unexpected results.

I provided participants with a choice of supporting documentation in the form of both step-by-step instructions and code snippets (see Chapter 5). While both forms of documentation follow a structure of close coupling between impact and result, which is core to the use of design patterns in computing education [@gamma_design_1995], this decision resulted in varied patterns of use. In the Vignette 1 extract above, Toby uses the graphical menu of patterns as a starting point to help him to choose, find and implement a GDP feature using supporting code snippets directly. In contrast to Vignette 2, he does not access the step-by-step instructions.

While the evidence outlined 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 engaged with the menu at all. For example, some participants learn to implement GDPs from peers, a process explored in a later section. Additionally, in Vignette 3, we see Ed let his father take the lead in accessing documentation. Secondly, because the GDP menu (and concepts) were introduced by myself as a navigational and organisational tool for use by participants, it seems logical that participants should use them for that purpose. The danger here is one of circular reasoning in methodology, which needs to be borne in mind when assessing the scope of this research ¹⁶. Despite these clarifications, the data clearly shows the utility of the menu of GDPs to directly help some participants — a clear example of just-in-time documentation supporting participant-led learning and providing a foundational source for the later propagation and evolution of GDP practices by participants.

These observations extend current research in this area in relation to the promising work on computational thinking patterns within the scalable game design (SGD) programme [@repenning_scalable_2015]. The structure of SGD and supporting resources was oriented around the motivation of transferability of science simulation concepts (in pattern form) to other science disciplines. By way of contrast, in my research the motivation is to align the structure of documentation to the choices of desired game features made by earlier iterations of participants. In this way, project navigation increases the relatability of the patterns at play. The use of gameplay design patterns ¹⁷ facilitates a tangible coupling between the participant experience of the pattern and the process of implementing it.

GDPs used to scaffold ideation and prioritisation processes

This section outlines how the use of GDP concepts and supporting resources structured around GDPs were used in ideation and project organisation. The impact of the provision of the starter game template and menu of GDPs outlined in Chapter 5 changed the nature of the ideation phase by providing technical scaffolding and a limiting structure to participant design choices.

An exchange from Vignette 3 between participants Ed(c) and Mark(p) 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 more systematically. 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). Mark becomes overwhelmed with the child’s lack of focus on one pattern: “that’s what I mean, you can’t just skip around like that.”¹⁸ This use of GDPs to allow the spatial 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. In a session in P3, Toby uses the code-based tilemap tool to design a maze game instead of a platformer, drawing on existing knowledge of tools and home knowledge of the target game genre to rapidly make revisions without extensive planning ¹⁹.

Other pairs take advantage of paper prototyping. For example, Susanna notices her child’s difficulty in using cursor, delete, and backspace keys to edit a matrix allowing level design. In response, 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. Interview data with Mark and Ed uncovers complexities in the use of both digital and paper prototyping related to GDPs ²⁰.

The following exchange (Table 6.x) captures a moment where the GDP concepts are used to structure an ideation exchange, proposing a more radical change of underlying game genre.

Dialogue	Activity / Notes / Gestures
Dan (p): Have you thought about pushing it a bit further and have a different style of game? Toby(c): What do you mean?
Dan: Well the previous style of game was a platform game wasn’t it? You went along and there was gravity pushing down. There are other types of games aren’t there?	Dan makes shape with hands to indicate a platform. Then points downwards to indicate gravity pushing on that platform. Mimics player jumping between platforms.
Toby: Pause. I don’t know what to do though. Dan: Well quite, but what other games are there? Toby: I don’t know er. Dan: Well I tell you what… (muffled) Toby: Erm	Toby navigates to webpage menu of GDPs.
Dan: So. You played them before didn’t you? Toby: What do you mean? Dan: The flying game, that’s a different kind of game. Toby: Oh, like kind of like moving along kind of thing.	Toby moves hand left to right.
Dan: Yeah, and there are games where you are in a world and you have to move around the world like Pac-Man.	Dan points down and moves finger around like an imaginary character moving at right angles. Toby nods.
Dan: There are games where things drop down like Tetris. Toby: …game. You could have a game where every 15 seconds, 10 seconds, you could add an enemy to such and such, a random number between such and such. You could block it somewhere.	Dan makes a shape with hand and moves it up and down. Toby holds up hands to indicate a range of parameters as he says “between such and such.”
Dan: So instead of… instead of the world… the world being sideways, we could have the world being looked down on.	Dan re-indicates the change of perspective with hand gestures.
Toby: Hmm. How should I do this then? Dan: That’s a good question. Shall we ask Mick to see if that would mess things up or not?

Table 6.x - Vignette 6 Extract.

Illustration 6.x - Indicating change of perspective via gesture {width=95%}

In the vignette extract above, Dan(p) helps Toby(c) via guided facilitation to provoke and shape new design ideas using home-based knowledge of GDP mechanics within this interpersonal plane. Dan draws 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 discuss breaking out of the genre constraints of starting template. Here they are charting new territory beyond the curated choices of GDPs and as such we see them developing a new shared vocabulary to express concepts. Both Dan and Toby make extensive use of gestures in their interaction reinforces their spoken references to GDP concepts.

The research by Erickson [-@erickson_lingua_2000] and Erikisson [-@eriksson_using_2019] (two different researchers) who detail use of design patterns and GDPs in particular, as a lingua franca to facilitate collaboration within design processes. The observations of this section (and the chapter more generally) support and extend existing research on the utility of collective, emergent use of pattern languages within communities working on projects. Here, data shows this potential for GDPs within ideation, prioritisation and clarification. It indicates that as well as a verbal lingua franca, GDPs can be a valuable component of gestural interaction, and visually-oriented prototyping tools, be they digital or paper based.

GDPs aiding the process of division of labour

I now turn to the use of GDPs within processes of division of labour, a process which as in the previous section, involved their use in an emergent form of communication to construct shared language and understanding [@erickson_lingua_2000]. I begin with data in the form of several vignette extracts and additional description in sucession before proceeding to commentary and discussion.

Susanna(p) and Tehillah(c) working process relied on the parent to do the majority of code implementation on one shared one computer. The parent took a lead on many activities but took care that the pair alternated between use of keyboard and mouse. This provided the child with hands-on experience when possible, particularly in level design activities and playtesting ²¹. In interview data, the parent notes “I resist the urge to fix things immediately when she (Tehillah(c)) struggles.” Another exchange from Vignette 2 is described below.

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 about what this statement means, 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 asked Tehillah to seek help from facilitator. 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. Tehillah also carried out more peripheral activities such as watching older children playtest each others games, or observing community activity from under the table.

Toby adopted different working arrangements dependent on which family members he attended with. In P1, his mother worried she had abandoned him as she worked on the game code while he concentrated on graphical assets (where in evidence?). In P2 Toby had created his own game, coding mostly alone but situated next to his grandparents who provided attention and support (see Vignette 1). In P3, he worked in a pair with his father (Dan) in closely guided practice (see Vignette 6 and shorter extract as Table 6.x above). Toby and Dan’s pair process was more guided and focused than many other participants and includes accessing professional documentation and Dan guiding Toby in exploration of computational thinking concepts ²². Analysis of the interaction in the session of Vingette 6 shows an emerging pattern.

Dan (p) starts as a facilitator, taking a lead from the direction of the child. As Toby(c) 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.

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. The following is and extract from Vignette 5,

Madiha calls across the room to draw on Nasrin's help to correct a design mistake.  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." Nasrin undertakes a process of using the graphical editing tool. "Madiha: How did you do that so quickly? I’ve got to like, carefully..." As she speaks, Madiha makes hand gestures to show a sense of hesitant keyboard use. In response, Nasrin bounces up in place and smiles broadly.

Madiha(p) and Nasrin(c) at times reversed the parent helping child relationship. On request, Nasrin would reluctantly carry out the required technical elements of GDPs implementation on the parents game code. However, she would not explain the process of the changes needed, seemingly enjoying the power of knowing something that her mother didn’t. Vignette 5 shows Madiha(p) building an emerging identity as a graphical asset designer, compared to other coding tasks, this is something that she does want to build her competency in. Nasrin affects reluctance in her support of her mother, but at other times shows that she enjoys her status of technical supporter (see reflective commentary in Vignette 5). In Vignette 3, Mark(p) and Ed(c) break out of a dysfunctional division of labour in the penultimate session of P2 ²³.

For much of the first part of the session Mark takes a significant amount of time puzzling over documentation on how to add animation to a character. He reads aloud from documentation. "Mark:. In the create function...". He breaks off to comment on the difficulty involved. "Mark: Quite complicated. But we can do it. But it would mean a lot of mucking around....It’s like a project in itself really."  Ed is left inactive and seemingly address this tension child proposes dividing their labour and working on two separate computers. Ed points to the cupboard in which laptop computers are kept and comments. "Ed(c): Why don’t you go there for a computer and you can do that?"  Mark(p): Why? What? While you’re doing what? Ed: Um making a sound track or something. I could do something like that." Mark fetches a new computer to continue his focused research but soon joins in Ed'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.

Turning now to commentary and discussion in summary these examples show the use of GDPs as an organisational strategy, structuring work processes in diverse ways. On a structural level, in alignment with the framing outlined at the start of this chapter, the conceptualisation of each GDPs as a object of an activity system nested within the broader activity of game making allows greater understanding and flexibility regarding division of labour at play.

The decision to work on a different GDPs can help participants maintain flow and engagement. In the above example Ed chooses a different GDP to work on to avoid disengagement. 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. In doing so 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 ²⁴.

In contrast some participants took on different roles while working on the same pattern and the same computer. For example, Tehliah designing an enemy, and placing within level design as her mother codes the pattern ²⁵.

Similarly, some young people and parents began to take on specialist and distributed roles related to a developing identity. This is present in the example of Nasrin(c) and Madiha(p) in Vignette 5 where both are oriented to developing higher quality graphical assets, but Nasrin also adopts a technical support role for her mother.

Data also demonstrated ways in which the participant divided the process of game making, in ways which uncovered traces of home collaboration practices. For example, Toby and Dan’s pair process of accessing professional documentation also illustrated an aspect of their family learning culture ²⁶.

The analysis here contributes grounded examples to existing strands of research addressing division of labour within CGD&P and related learning in informal technology settings. Tehillah(c)’s activity away from the screen, such as hiding under the tables and observing others, 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 observe and not engage directly in community activities is seen by Rogoff [-@rogoff_cultural_2003; -@rogoff_organization_2016] as an important characteristic in participation-based models of learning. While the value of this process of messing around is explored in informal learning environments by Ito [-@ito_hanging_2010] and Gee [-@gee_situated_2004] ²⁷, it is less explored in CGD&P research, especially in this non-formal setting ²⁸.

Taken together, the observations above provide a case study suitable to inform practitioners looking to benefit from related research on informal emerging roles within joint technology work. The work of Barron et al. [-@barron_parents_2009], shows parents fulfilling several informal roles including collaborator, resource provider, learner, non-technical consultant, and emotional support. The work of Roque [-@roque_im_2016] provides guidance for helpers in the process to support parents to value and feel confident in these roles. Other research shows the potential children have to help parents as technology brokers [@correa_brokering_2015]. As a relevant contribution, my research shows the potential utility of GDPs to nurture the emergence of organic and flexible divisions of a labour and specialist roles.

As a limitation however, the variety of repertoires of helping practice depends in part on the different funds of knowledge the parent and young people have access to. For example, the helping pattern of researching and accessing technical documentation is a key element of Dan and Toby’s working practices. In several interchanges, is not available to all pairs, due to the level of skill and experience involved. Dan’s experience as a software engineer and volunteer at informal coding clubs is relevant as a fund of knowledge he draws on²⁹. Similarly, the context of the participants as families involved in home education makes any general claims difficult. These families are used to learning and working together on projects, they have developed skills and practices which they are able to bring to bear in this activity but which may not be shared by participants in other contexts.

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

Continuing the three planes approach to analysis [@rogoff_observing_1995], this section explores the use of GDPs at the cultural or community plane of activity. Rogoff’s initial discussion of the cultural plane focused on established communities of practice, using the metaphor of apprenticeship to explain how shared norms and practices are taken up by newcomers [-@rogoff_observing_1995]. In later work with Gutiérrez [-@gutierrez_cultural_2003], she shifted toward a more dynamic interpretation, placing greater emphasis on cultural activity as contested and emergent . This perspective foregrounds the role of participants in shaping new repertoires by drawing on knowledge and practices from other communities. Gutiérrez [-@gutierrez_developing_2008] further extended this view through the concept of third space, where the repertoires of home and community can mix with those of formal schooling.

While the previous section focused on guided participation and the interpersonal mediation of learning, the emphasis here shifts toward the development of shared repertoires, community norms, and the propagation of practices across the wider learning environment. Within this conceptual framing, the following sections explore how GDPs were taken up and repurposed within both existing and emerging repertoires, as part of the cultural activity of the learning community.

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.

In the extract from Vignette 2, Tehillah (c) pursues a quirky design goal during her paired design work, which Susanna (p) resists. Imagining a shift in perspective to the intended audience at a community level of interaction, the parent draws on the perspective of the imagined player to ensure a sense of challenge in gameplay.

Dialogue	Activity
Susanna: Are you putting one in your third level as well?	Susanna is referring to inserting new “keys” into the level design, which is possible after implementing the Key and Door pattern in code.
Tehillah: Yes and then I’m going to make more levels	Tehillah smiles at Susanna and then looks away for a short while.
Tehillah: You do this bit
Tehillah: And then delete those H’s. And in there.	The H’s refer to hazards in the level design matrix.
Susanna: No! No! Tehillah: Then, let me do it.	(Off screen) Tehillah takes over the keyboard.
Susanna: It’s no fun having a game with no hazards to avoid. Tehillah: It is for me!
Tehillah: How do you go that way back? So sorry for deleting… They just…	Tehillah indicates she wants to delete characters before the cursor. On screen, she deletes all hazards in Level 3 of the game.
Back Back Back O O O Back O	Tehillah laughs. On screen, she adds three coins to Level 3 by inserting “O” characters into the level design matrix.
Susanna: Goodness me, what was the point of designing our car with fumes if we’re not going to use it? Tehillah: I don’t know.	Susanna’s tone indicates frustration. After speaking, Tehillah sighs deeply.

Susanna (p)’s concern at the child’s deletion of all hazard elements shows her awareness of game balance and the need for challenge from the player’s perspective. “It’s no fun having a game without any hazards to avoid.” However, Tehillah (c) seems determined to remove all hazards. “It is for me!” she replies. She appears aware of the design implications but seems to take pleasure in removing all challenge from the level, as an act of disruptive or subversive play ³⁰.

Some other participants, including Toby and Nasrin, created extremely challenging or even impossible game levels that frustrated other players. However, not all participants were as aware of the experience of gameplay dynamics for others, even when guided by peers during community sessions. Vignette 4 outlines several sequential episodes of participant feedback on the challenge level of Madiha’s game. The discussion of game challenge, particularly comments about how hard participant games were, was a common interaction during playtesting. The vignette illustrates the informal norming of Madiha (p)’s game to align more closely with expected standards of platform games. It shows a variety of attempts to influence Madiha to adjust game variables that made controlling her player avatar feel frustrating.

The indirect norming behaviours described in Vignette 4 mirror observations seen in the work of Rogoff and colleagues [@rogoff_cultural_2003] on learning in community settings. It appears that norms of gameplay challenge began to emerge through peer interaction, some of which were influenced by participants’ home experiences of game playing.

These examples also serve to highlight two ways in which GDP concepts facilitated the process of designing for others. First, the cultural setting of regular peer playtesting influenced participants’ decisions through shared social feedback. Second, participants were prompted, either directly through advice from partners and peers, or indirectly through observed gameplay feedback, to consider the end-user experience and adapt their GDP implementations accordingly.

This interpretation aligns with research in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), which highlights the motivational and structuring value of public, tangible digital products [@xambo_experience_2017; @fields_programmers_2015]. The results here contribute to an area where relatively few studies have explored how CSCL approaches support learning in computer programming [@silva_computer-supported_2020]. Chapter 2 explored ideas from professional and participatory design traditions, where user experience should inform design practice [@redstrom_towards_2006], as well as the challenges of carrying out such an “operationalisation of empathy” [@surma-aho_conceptualization_2022, p.1]. From a CHAT perspective, this involves learners shifting perspective as they engage with different scopes of activity and intention.

The cultural propagation and evolution of GDPs concepts

The implementation of popular or novel GDPs by participant pairs or individuals often spread through peer activity. Participants’ game design choices were influenced by playing the games of others, and at times, they would request direct help from peers to implement GDPs they had witnessed within their own games.

In Vignette 1, 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 also possible that Bertie’s request is prompted by having observed Toby helping Nasrin and Harper with similar tasks. 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 facilitator, and as an alternative to the instruction-based support documents.

The data shows examples of the organic emergence of novel GDPs and related design concepts beyond those offered in the menu of supporting documentation. Tehillah’s concept of a kind of bonus level that eschews challenge and offers only rewards, explored above, emerged through playful experimentation. While this idea exists in popular games, it was a novel invention for her in context. 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. Other participants created extremely challenging or impossible game levels that frustrated other players. As with the example of Tehillah above, some participants applied the game theory concept of defying genre convention during game design [@niknejad_level_2024]. They seemed to take pleasure in ignoring the convention of balance in game dynamics and provoking a sense of surprise or disruption in their audience.

This section follows logically from the previous one in that designing for others and providing more space for social playtesting within the session then leads to the propagation of emerging gameplay patterns ³¹. Once concepts like safe zone or bonus level enter the linguistic and coding repertoire of this community of game makers, either from documentation, home gaming knowledge, or genuine innovation, they become available for others to take up and remix.

The concept of the propagation of project features without any intervention from facilitators is explored in research on informal computing clubs [@maloney_programming_2008; @peppler_computer_2009]. In interview data, practitioner Matt Curringa shared a tension that impacted his practice and led to the decision to orient his club’s activities around guided, focused processes (such as Lego engineering competitions using coding) ³². The contribution here is to propose the use of GDPs—particularly their propagation and incorporation into the developing culture of the creative community—as a structured way to support that process of self-directed participation.

GDPs can facilitate the use of wider repertoires of practice, interest and funds of knowledge

This section outlines some of the ways GDP concepts are mobilised in the incorporation of participants’ interests from outside this learning space, and wider repertoires of practice ³³. In Chapter 5 I outlined the use of the MDA (mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics) framework to theme the presentation of GDPs. Here, I use the MDA themes to explore grounded examples of how participants drew on home-based interests and knowledge during game making.

Regarding aesthetics, some participants oriented their game making primarily around the aesthetic appeal of their projects. In one example, Madiha(p) identifies herself as an “expert pixel” in the vignette extract above, emphasising a sense of ownership over the graphical design process. Many examples of session data show an orientation towards graphical design of the visual elements of games as a clear preference for both Madiha and her daughter Nasrin. Supporting interview data confirms that art is a shared interest they pursue in their home activities ³⁴. The process of bringing that creativity into their games allows them to share this artistic orientation and attention to detail with the emerging learning community. In another example, Mark(p) and Ed(c) designed a game around the character of a train driver who needed to collect coal. In interview data, Mark describes the impact of Ed feeling able to 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.” ³⁵ Clive and Pearl, the grandparents of Toby, included a narrative message ³⁶ at the start of their game, surfacing the family’s expertise as beekeepers in a way that sparked interest and conversations with other participants. Families or individuals less engaged with gaming itself often found more meaningful entry points through visual or narrative design.

Jumping to game mechanics, Bertie(c) makes 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?” ³⁷ In this interaction, Bertie draws on his experience of commercial games to make comparisons and show insight into gameplay patterns. Additionally, Dan(p)’s guidance of Toby(c), explored in Vignette 7, explicitly draws out the child’s home gaming knowledge to explore an alternative set of game mechanics. The process of working with game dynamics has already been addressed in the previous section [^gd].

The purpose of highlighting participant practices through the MDA typology is to suggest that supporting materials can be structured in a way that helps participants follow varied learning pathways based on home interests. While the MDA framework itself is not assumed to be ideal for this purpose, offering intuitive frameworks that allow learners to make meaningful choices and express themselves has potential value for inclusive pedagogy [@sanger_inclusive_2020; @capp_effectiveness_2017] ³⁸.

The examples above provide insight into how participants’ tacit knowledge of games, and GDPs in particular, were brought into the community and mobilised across roles such as ideation, peer feedback, and the division of labour [@wenger_communities_1998].

To begin discussing these findings in relation to relevant research, we can resituate them in relation to: sociocultural work on the tactical use of home repertoires and funds of knowledge to navigate technical settings [@gutierrez_learning_2019-1; @moje2001maestro; @fasso_identity_2020; @esteban-guitart_funds_2014]; research on motivations for social making that incorporates gaming culture into informal activity [@ito_hanging_2010; @gee_what_2003; @sefton-green_mapping_2013; @livingstone_digital_2018]; and studies on how personalised narratives and assets can sustain engagement in digital making and CGD&P [@sefton-green_mapping_2013; @kafai_constructionist_2015; @resnick_mothers_2012; @papert_mindstorms:_1980] ³⁹.

The contribution here is to extend this research by showing how GDPs can act as a mediational strategy to support the integration and evolution of participants’ home repertoires within digital making. This positions GDPs not just as a conceptual tool but as a scaffold for inclusive, interest-driven learning design ⁴⁰.

Discussion

This discussion draws together the different mediational uses of gameplay design patterns observed across the chapter, positioning GDPs as germ cells that supported both the development of design fluency and, in some cases, the emergence of agency. By tracing their use across individual, interpersonal, and cultural planes of activity, the analysis highlighted the varied ways GDPs structured participation, scaffolded interaction, and enabled learners to engage with the design process.

The focus now shifts to how these patterns of use contributed to learners’ capacity to act with increasing flexibility and purpose. It explores the role of GDPs in building fluency through repeated use, how such fluency became a platform for instrumental agency, and how this in turn fed into shifts in the object of activity. This trajectory is developed further in Chapter 7. The analysis draws on concepts from both CHAT and broader literature on computational fluency. While the third-generation activity theory (3GAT) framework proved useful in identifying and organising key contradictions and tensions within the activity system, it was at times limited in accounting for the diverse mediational roles GDPs played across activity systems. GDPs acted not only as tools but also as shared references and sources of motivation. Their role in sustaining engagement, supporting ideation, and structuring participation suggests they operated beyond the confines of any single activity system, instead shaping an emergent idioculture grounded in local, evolving repertoires of practice. The contribution of GDPs to this idioculture is considered more directly below, particularly in relation to the development of cultural norms such as peer collaboration, humour, appropriate challenge, and the integration of home-informed interests. These elements were not always provided within the learning design but evolved dynamically, co-produced by participants.

Gameplay design patterns as mediating cultural resources

<!– * GDPs were used across individual, interpersonal, and cultural planes of activity, in line with Rogoff’s three planes framework [@rogoff_observing_1995].

Their role went beyond surface scaffolding — GDPs served as cultural tools that helped learners coordinate ideas, make decisions, and engage with design at multiple levels.
Across the project, GDPs travelled flexibly between contexts (e.g. dialogue, sketching, code, planning), demonstrating versatility as mediational means.
As activity progressed, GDPs took on new meanings and applications — they became germ cells [@engelstrom_studies_2011], small but generative concepts that seeded more complex understanding and creative action.
Rather than following the logic of fixed design stages, GDPs were taken up opportunistically and recursively, often re-entering the activity in unplanned ways.
This challenges linear design models and supports a sociocultural view of design as emergent, fluid, and shaped by shifting objects and mediational tools. –>

Chapter 5, via a design narrative of the pedagogical design used, highlighted tensions where existing mediational strategies or tools were insufficient, and thus innovative forms of mediation were needed. This chapter has offered further analysis of activity by focusing on the germ cell concept of GDPs used in a variety of ways, a summary of which has been represented in table form at the start of this chapter. GDPs are used in diverse ways by participants, peers and facilitators, as either principle or supporting parts of mediational strategies, including as a shared language, as a motivational element, or as a way of structuring the learning experience and supporting resources. A summary of the diverse uses of GDPs is included within Table 6.x.

Category	Use of GDPs	Description
Personal appropriation	Appropriation of personal knowledge	GDPs supported participants in exploring their own ideas, surfacing computational, design, and systems concepts embedded in games.
	Fluid design operations	The structure and modularity of GDPs facilitated iterative processes such as rapid prototyping, code patching, and debugging.
Guided participation / interpersonal focus	Framework for supporting resources and navigation	A restricted set of GDPs was used to organise tutorials, documentation, and menus, supporting flexible learner pathways.
	Scaffolding ideation and prioritisation	GDP concepts were used as shorthand in idea generation, planning, and decision-making during project work.
	Supporting division of labour	GDPs acted as a shared language that allowed participants to split tasks, coordinate roles, and build specialisms.
Cultural activity focus	Designing for others	The impact of GDP implementation helped participants imagine and respond to player experiences and feedback.
	Facilitating the use of home repertoires and interests	GDPs provided a way to incorporate personal, cultural, and home-based practices into game narratives and assets.
	Propagation through playtesting	Novel or effective GDP implementations spread between participants through peer interaction.
	Components of emerging repertoires in an evolving idioculture	Repeated use and adaptation of GDPs contributed to a shared culture of design practice.

Table 6.x: Summary of varied GDP use within the activity of this research

A fuller table summarising this chapter’s interpretation of the diverse roles of GDPs in the game-making activity using CHAT concepts and linking to supporting evidence is included in the Appendix. It lists example behaviours and indicates vignettes or appendices where the behaviour can be found in situ with more detailed analysis.

The objects of activity at both community and individual levels are complex in nature and shared between intersecting activity systems. Complexity is particularly evident in the varied role of GDPs, which at different moments functioned as mediational strategies or motivational components of the object at hand. Additional complexity arises from the interplay of mediational strategies of tool use with broader community activity. An example of this is the importation of GDP concepts from professional and home practices, their transformation within individual or pair-driven activity, and subsequent propagation into wider community practices described in this chapter.

Given this complexity, and the challenges of representing movement across overlapping activity systems, I found attempts to create holistic triangular visualisations to be problematic. As Engeström and Sannino [-@engestrom_mediated_2021] note when discussing the challenges of representing fourth-generation activity theory, you cannot just keep “adding triangles” to show transformations and system movement [^triangle]. Rather than forcing a holistic schema, it seems more productive to develop more focused representational strategies. As such, Chapter 7 explores new ways to visualise these dynamics, with a particular focus on agency development across the design.

Developing flexible fluency

Developing the theme of the complexity of the object of activity, this section discusses the motivational component driving the broad activity of the game-making programme. Chapter 2 explored research on the diversity of motivations for undertaking CGD&P, including developing programming skills, computational thinking, other subject knowledge, systems thinking, and 21st-century skills. Within constructionist research, particular strands exist around different forms of technical fluency [@papert_technological_1995] [^fluency]: see Chapter 2. These strands include computational, digital, and gaming fluency. They share common features of domain proficiency, self-expression and identity formation, and an experience of flow. Constructionist researchers have also promoted processes of design thinking, in particular the work of Resnick on the design spiral to support such fluency [@resnick_all_2007]. The following discussion contributes to this line of thinking within CGD&P research, in part through the use of CHAT concepts.

Returning to my own findings, one of the motivational factors guiding the evolution of the learning design of this study was to support participants to effectively share their social identity within game making and thus remain in a state of engagement and flow [@mao_optimal_2016] ⁴¹. The facilitation process involved supporting participants to build technical proficiency with relevant technology, enabling them to share interests and identity within a community of peers. This chapter has identified manifestations of such fluency and identity expression in the mediational uses of GDPs. Younger participants in particular demonstrated impressively fluid practice, with rapid shifts between code editing, game testing, authoring assets in online tools, and migrating files—often while talking with peers. Following CHAT, I interpret this increased proficiency as a transformation of actions into more fluent operations [@leontiev_activity_2009].

For many, this fluency incorporated improvisational characteristics. Clive (p) quickly added a player health boost after a level, following feedback during playtesting. Tehillah’s bonus level idea appeared to emerge spontaneously (Vignette 2). Pairs often adopted a similar spirit of improvisation. For example, parent Dan suggests (Vignette 6), “Use paper to design?”, to which Toby replies, “I’m just going with it.” In exploring sound-making software (Vignette 3), Ed and Mark engage in tinkering and experimentation, which spurs creativity. Their joint improvisation leads to two different soundtracks and a proposal to use different soundtracks for different levels.

The learning design’s emphasis on repeated implementation of GDPs appears to align with an iterative design thinking approach. However, participant behaviour did not align with linear design cycle frameworks advocated in constructionist research [@resnick_all_2007; @winarno_steps_2020-1; @dam_5_2024]. The stages were often fragmented or occurred in parallel. Video data includes many examples of improvisational approaches that combine ideation, planning, implementation, and testing in rapid succession. Using Mark’s phrase from Vignette 3, for many, the process was far from systematic—more a responsive “jumping around.” While not supported by systematic data analysis, the findings of this chapter suggest a relationship between the fluid, expressive and improvisational behaviour described and the supporting resources which allowed choice over learner pathway, specifically which GDPs to implement and in which order. Certainly, this adaptation aligns with research on the interdependence of flow experience and possibilities for social identity development [@mao_optimal_2016]. Thus, as a contribution to CGD&P research, my findings extending Basawapatna and colleagues [-[@basawapatna_zones_2013] approach to support flow via just in time documentation aligned with participants goal to support participant engagement, by providing mechanisms, structured around a curated set of GDPs and a stage-based development. The findings of the chapter also offer an alternative to the graceful flow of represented in the creative design spiral (and similar representations design cycles), positioning practice for many as more responsive, messy, and productively chaotic process [@biffi_chasing_2017-1; @de_freitas_classroom_2012; @cormier2008rhizomatic].

While not supported by systematic data analysis, the findings of this chapter suggest a relationship between the fluid, expressive and improvisational behaviour described and the supporting resources which allowed choice over learner pathway, specifically which GDPs to implement and in which order. Certainly, this adaptation aligns with research on the interdependence of flow experience and possibilities for social identity development [@mao_optimal_2016]. Thus, as a contribution to CGD&P research, my findings extending Basawapatna and colleagues [-[@basawapatna_zones_2013] approach to support flow via just in time documentation aligned with participants goal to support participant engagement, by providing mechanisms, structured around a curated set of GDPs and a stage-based development. The findings of the chapter also offer an alternative to the graceful flow of represented in the creative design spiral (and similar representations design cycles), positioning practice for many as more responsive, messy, and productively chaotic process [@biffi_chasing_2017-1; @de_freitas_classroom_2012; @cormier2008rhizomatic].

Most specifically, the diverse mediational and motivational strategies described in this chapter extend existing studies on the use of GDPs within educational contexts for young people. While Chapter 2 described one study that addressed some aspects of GDP use in a game co-design process [@eriksson_using_2019], it provided limited detail and focused primarily on GDPs as a tool for researchers—as a lingua franca and to structure analytical framing. My study gives greater attention to participant use of GDPs, particularly their importation from other contexts, transformation within the developing idioculture of the game-making context, and the resulting variety of uses. This extends this line of research significantly.

Conclusion

On a theoretical plane, this chapter has outlined the evolving use of GDPs as a mediational strategy to develop coding repertoires that are often shared. CHAT frames diverse uses of shared resources and concepts, in this case GDPs, as mediational strategies. On a cultural plane, using GDPs can support the propagation of technical and social game-making practices within an emerging community of learners. GDPs served both researchers and participants by providing a common language to clarify learners’ expressions and researchers’ analysis of gameplay experience. The observations in this chapter highlight the diversity and flexibility of GDPs as mediational tools. The next chapter builds on this by proposing the potential of GDPs as a relatable navigational framework, positioned between being too concrete to be generalised and too abstract to be grasped by novice game makers.

This chapter has begun to address Research Question 2, which asked how a collection of gameplay design patterns can support CGD&P, particularly in relation to the abstract and concrete dimensions of existing pedagogies. The analysis has shown how GDPs helped structure learner activity while also enabling flexible, situated adaptation. The interplay between abstract and concrete dimensions, only briefly touched on here, is taken up more fully in Chapter 7 in relation to how participants shaped and reframed the object of activity over time. The findings identified a complex and evolving object of activity, shaped by diverse participant motivations and not reducible to a single outcome. Rather than framing the design space around fixed goals such as computational fluency or flow, the chapter illustrated how GDPs helped learners navigate this complexity. In the next chapter, these trajectories are examined through the lens of agency, with particular attention to how participants coordinated intentions and roles in shared activity.

Footnotes

See Chapter 4. ↩
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. ↩
See Vignette 5 for fuller transcripts and analysis. ↩ ↩²
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]. ↩
see Glossary and Chapter 2 ↩
This vignette 1 extract is included to show both the technical process of code patching explored here and the process of accessing documentation covered in the following section on guided participation. ↩
Toby’s eventual success in using the code patching and debugging technique was supported by the high level of contextualisation provided by the structuring of the process around GDPs https://3m.flossmanuals.net/#game-mechanic-add-moving-enemies ↩
I use the term glitch here to refer to errors which allow the game to continues to function but which provoke an unintended effect. See C.debugging for more information. ↩
During P4, P5 and D3. See Chapter 4 for clarification. ↩
For fuller descriptions are avaiable within the learning resources created for P4 and P5 here. https://mickfuzz.github.io/makecode-platformer-101/learningDimensions ↩
See Appendix.D.5 which explores in more detail the evolution of this map. ↩
The support for the key and door pattern is here. https://3m.flossmanuals.net/#game-mechanic-keys-and-doors ↩
Where unclear, in this writing, the name of the parent is followd by a (p) and that of the child by a (c). For example, Susanna(p) and Tehillah(c). ↩
The reflective commentary of Vignette 2 a tension between the child’s desire to ask for help to progress and the parent’s reluctance is described ↩
In this case, her daughter’s choice has been influenced by social interactions with the group. The concept of key and door (a pattern where the player needed to collect a key before progressing through a door in the level) had been discussed as a group previously. In Appendix D.3.map, the key and pattern is also identified in group discussion one of the harder to implement. ↩
My input into the structuring of the menu of GDPs and the supporting documentation is also relevant as a factor in guided participation. ↩
See Chapter 2 for a disambiguation of design patterns oriented to code structure or towards resulting behaviours in the end product. Here gameplay design patterns would be recognised by players. ↩
For a fuller transcript and a reflective commentary of this exchange see Vignette 3. ↩
See the reflective commentary in Vignette 6 for a fuller description of this moment. ↩
Extracts from this interview and commentary on the use of diverse ways of prototyping game design patterns is explored in more detail in Appendix C.proto . ↩
An example of this transfer is in the vignette extract earlier in the chapter in Table 6.x. A fuller description is in Vignetted 2. ↩
An example is the use of the console to explore variables, and the use of conditional statements. ↩
Mark(p) repeatedly steers Ed(c) to pick one GDP to allow them to carefully work through the associated documentation together, a process he later refers to in interview data as plodding . See interview extract in Vignette 3. ↩
In this case, the joint improvised process sparks a new proposal to incorporate the two soundtracks they create in distinct levels. ↩
This process differs from the division of labour in P1 in that the graphical design is wrapped within this iteration of applying a GDP ↩
See Vignette 6 for interview data with Dan showing his involvement with coding and supporting informal family coding activities at Coder Dojo events. ↩
Their work is explored in context in the introduction. ↩
To clarify informal and non-formal see Chapter ?, In short non-formal here reflects that these are regular sessions and are structured even if that facilitation is with a light touch. ↩
see Vignette 6 and the later section of this chapter on repertoire use. ↩
Tehillah describes her final level which has only rewards and no hazards as a “secret, special” experience. Indicating that she is playing against the norms of platform game design in a way designed to provoke player surprise. ↩
REDUCE - Chapter 5 outlines some of the processes introduced To help foster an environment conducive to social interaction. I led by warm up games encourages playtesting time in the second half or each session. This playtesting time was open in scope allowed for natural play to emerge. Phase two and three in particular can be characterised as having a playful and social atmosphere. ↩
Extract from Interview with Matt Curringa. “So, you know, I read, like, the stuff published from Peppler and their group, and the idea that the kids just come in and they work and the projects, and as long as everyone’s working on something like, they don’t give any instruction. I would love to do that, but when the closer I get to that model, mostly the kids eat snacks and draw on the whiteboards about who’s gonna date who.”” ↩
The concept of repertoires of practice and how they move and transform as learners enter different spaces is outlined in Chapter 3 [@gutierrez_cultural_2003]. ↩
See Vignette 4 for an overview of the use of game dynamic concepts within community interaction. ↩
see Vignette 5 ↩
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.”; ↩
Parkour in Minecraft and Wipeout are both game experiences whose main gameplay mechanic is about judging jumps and landing accurately. See the reflective commentary “Peer propagation and community uptake of GDPs” in Vignette 1. ↩
This aligns with a key tenets of the inclusive pedagogy Universal Design for Learning (UDL). See Chapter 8 for a summary. ↩
Research related to project based learning (PBL) benefits of working with participants’ home interests with project work include to motivate participants in initial stages [@swirski_does_2018-1; @penuel_connecting_2022], sustain activity and overcome problems in order to share the personalised object created [@barron_conceptualizing_2010; @barron_interest_2006-1]. ↩
While existing work on computational design patterns by Repenning et al. [-@repenning_scalable_2015] addresses the motivational value of working with known games types, and the patterns as a way of scaffolding the process of programming, it is limited in the way it addresses aspect of choice when of drawing on home interests. ↩
The value of flow to enhance motivation, deepen engagement, and improves learning outcomes stems from my own reflexive practice and is supported by wider work on flow theory and game based approaches [@whitton_investigation_2007; @perttula_flow_2017]. ↩

6. Findings - Game Design Patterns

Findings: Game Design Patterns

Introduction

Recapping the framing of GDPs within activity theory concepts

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

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

GDPs used in the process of guided participation

Use of a menu of GDPs to assist project navigation and use of documentation

GDPs used to scaffold ideation and prioritisation processes

GDPs aiding the process of division of labour

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

The role of GDPs to facilitate learners to design for others

The cultural propagation and evolution of GDPs concepts

GDPs can facilitate the use of wider repertoires of practice, interest and funds of knowledge

Discussion

Gameplay design patterns as mediating cultural resources

Developing flexible fluency

Conclusion

Footnotes