To:

From:
Celina
Date:
Subject:

Jennie Chiu
Lee Williams, Mary Ellen Potter, Grace Hwang, Shelby Ware, Rachel Han,
Abboud
November 3rd 2016
Undercover Detectives: Research Based Prototype Revision

In this document, we reviewed our class readings and tackled five different dimensions. We
defined every dimension, uncovered some problems that our game is facing and came up with
solutions to all of the problems.
Dimension 1: Conceptual Assessment Framework (CAF)
Definition of Dimension:
The CAF is a design framework for viewing learning games which identifies three key elements
of all educational games: the content model, the task model, and the evidence model. The goal of
the CAF model is to align the learning goals, tasks and outcomes of a game with the learning
experience of the user. Doing so will produce more meaningful educational gameplay as well as
a more effective assessment of the students playing the game.

Content Model: defines the knowledge, skills and abilities targeted by the game. In other words,
it is a description of the learning goals of the game being designed. Learning constructs are
defined and separated out into their various parts. Included is a description of the different levels
of proficiency for each learning objective.
Task Model: describes the key mechanics and procedures a player will execute during gameplay
that relate to the learning goals. The task model must define how each task is carried out by the
player, and how such an action or behavior will produce the evidence needed to assess if a
learning objective was taught or not. The task model includes a description for how situations
will be structured in order that artifacts/data are produced for back-end interpretation.
Evidence Model: defines the observations and behaviors of game players that can be interpreted
to evaluate their learning of the certain skills outlined in the content model. In addition to
describing which particular observations will be used as evidence of learning, the evidence
model puts forth guidelines for how such data is to be interpreted as well as how the content
model should be updated based upon these interpretations.
Problems Uncovered:
Given how our content and task models were created such that they would align, our focus
during this evaluation was upon the evidence model, which we felt needed improvement. The
only explicit data points produced during gameplay for interpretation in the evidence model
are the written responses by players during the Undercover Work and My Profile activities.
Although these are interpreted by our evidence model to understand and assess student progress

in empathic and writing skill development, we believe that the game can and should include
more indicators of student progress outside of the written materials alone. In addition, we
currently do not have guidelines in place to assess student progression with respect to the writing
skills we hope to teach them (our secondary learning objective). Our scoring system, updated
based upon feedback from playtesters, presents a more nuanced and informative structure for
evaluating the development of empathy, but it does not specifically address how students
writing skills are improving.
Solution/Rationale:
Although the only physical artifacts produced by the game will be the written responses of the
students, teachers will be available to observe a rich set of data unfolding before their eyes
during gameplay (namely, when students are engaged in the interview activity). Young et al.
describe how game-based assessment tools should capture the rich, individualized, situated data
produced in vivo gameplay (2012). Empirically-derived characteristics of students with low and
high empathic competence will be provided to teachers to empower them to productively
observe and assess their students as the students engage in gameplay. Also, to improve internal,
game-based assessment of writing skills, we will more explicitly connect the games prompts to
the 6th grade writing Standards of Learning (SOLs) in Virginia and include the dimensions used
by the Virginia Department of Education when assessing student writing. Implementing this
interpretation structure will allow teachers to analyze data produced during gameplay to inform
their understanding of where each student stands with his/her writing ability. We chose not to
include formal evaluative components of writing in the democratized scoring process that is
utilized for empathy assessment because it may cause students to disengage from gameplay
(since it is not fully integrated into the mechanisms associated with our games premise) and
because the teacher is better qualified to conduct this sort of academic assessment.
Connection of Evidence Model to Content Model:
Based upon the judgment of the class/body of players as a whole, each player will receive points
toward a promotion within the detective agency. If an individual does not reach the 10 point
threshold for the next rank/level, he/she must repeat the going undercover process at their
previous rank in the agency in order to further practice and master the data collection and
expression process. Once mastery is achieved at a certain level, ranking is increased and
behavioral restrictions are levied or expanded.
Dimension 2: Just-in-time / On Demand
Definition of Dimension:
Information either just in time, that is, right when players need and can use it; or on demand,
that is, when players feel a need for it, want it, are ready for it, and can make good use of it. This
information usually comes in during a challenging portion of a game when the player is faced
with a new obstacle, or an obstacle with increased difficulty, where skill integration or decision
making is unclear.

Problems Uncovered:
During playtesting players did not have the just in time information. Instead they had a bulk of
information they had to work through. Currently Undercover Detectives provides on demand
information with the overly complex rules and regulations located within each player's folder.
This document provides guidance but does not offer specific assistance for conquering new
obstacles. For example, a level 4 detective does not have information available to him or her
about how to function under his or her new restrictions. During playtesting, on demand
information was available because our group members acted as the teacher. Otherwise, referring
to the rules and regulations in each player's folder was the only available source of information.
With regards to feedback, information on performance is given after the fact during the scoring
portion of the game. Given the longevity of gameplay, this feedback is applicable knowledge
players can use during their next obstacle/round. Also, there is an assumption that players may
talk with each other about how they dealt with different restrictions. This communication will
yield improved strategy per individual.
Solution/Rationale:
To solve this, the teacher kit will include instructions to monitor player activity. Specifically, in
classrooms where students may need extra assistance, the teacher offers on demand assistance
during the interview portion of each round. If a player does not understand the mission,
terminology, or the restriction, the teacher may provide an explanation and if necessary, an
example. The teacher will provide scaffolded on demand instruction as the game is gradually
introduced over time. In addition, a reflection discussion time period will be added once a month
to reflect directly about empathy skills, emphasize similarities, discuss difficulties and/or
surprises (Belman & Flanagan, 2010). This will increase empathy and the effectiveness of the
learning goals and will give an the students an opportunity to learn from each others strategies.
This will be supplemental to feedback inherent in scoring portion.
Dimension 3: Premise
Definition of Dimension:
The premise acts as a games background story; it is the story behind what players are doing
within the game. The premise is designed to engage players more effectively.
Problems Uncovered:
Overall, dramatic elements need to be increased in appropriate places in our game. We
specifically wanted to focus on premise because of the mixed feedback we received. Most of the
playtesters enjoyed our premise - we received the comment that the premise would engage upper
elementary aged children. However, it seems as though the premise might veil a slightly less fun
game underneath. We are concerned that the players will think that the game is a thinly veiled
attempt to encourage them to write and develop empathy. In playtesting, we attempted to counter

this by creating detective missions that were designed to engage the players while giving them
directions for what they should be interviewing their partner about. These detective missions
were unsuccessful; playtesters were confused about why their partners were supposedly
criminals. Playtesters were subsequently confused about whether they should answer the prompt
from their own perspective, or if they were supposed to take on the role of a criminal character.
Most importantly, we need to find a way to incorporate premise into all aspects of the game. As
the game currently stands, scoring does not have any premise elements associated with it. We
need to ensure that the premise is evident in all aspects of our game: the introduction, the rules,
the interview, the writing, and the scoring.
Solution/Rationale:
We will keep the premise simple, since both simple and sophisticated game mechanics can prove
effective (Clark et al., 2015). Because of this, we will attempt not to go overboard on driving the
premise home. One specific place we can simplify our premise is in the mission cards. We will
delete the part of the mission card that gives background on the interview relating to our premise.
While it enhanced our premise, this information made our game confusing. Since the Clark et al.,
2015 research demonstrated that simple game mechanics can be just as effective as sophisticated
ones, we feel justified in removing this information. We also decided to take away music during
player interviews, since we had complaints about it and now know that a simpler game mechanic
can be just as effective (Clark et al., 2015). A successful premise can bridge the gap between
formal and dramatic elements in the game and heighten the experience of players (Fullerton,
95-6), so we plan to incorporate premise (a dramatic element) into some of the formal elements
of the game, such as scoring and the rules and procedures. For scoring, we want to build out the
idea that a jury of the students peers is evaluating their detective work (empathy piece) as an
assessment to determine if the student is ready for promotion in the detective agency. Some
concrete ways to make the judging align more with our theme include: label the jury as the
supervising panel and give them badges when they judge their classmates pieces, and give all
students a tangible reminder of their level in the game (badge, hat, notebook, magnifying glass).
Our introductory video for the game will build drama for the students. Finally, we plan to have
another, very brief reminder video of one of our game designers (pretending to be a top
detective from our agency) reminding students that they need to go undercover as their partners
as best as they can if they want a promotion. The idea coming from us rather than from the
students own teachers might give more of a sense of urgency to the game, specifically in the
interviewing and writing portions.
Dimension 4: Challenge/flow
Definition of Dimension:
Flow is defined as the perceived challenges that engage the play according to their appropriate
level of capacity. It includes working with clear goals and immediate feedback about the
progress being made. With the progress made, players regularly adjust their actions to fit the
feedback. As the challenges become more difficult, a level of engagement is built. The right
amount of flow leads to intrinsic motivation, separate from an extrinsic reward. Another large

component to flow is the level of fun in the game, which leads to a loss of reflective selfconsciousness and a distortion of temporal experience (Nakamura, 2014).
Problems Uncovered:
The challenging aspects of the game are mostly covered by the aspect of the restrictions. Each
level incorporates a progressively more and more difficult way to interview the subject. Players
are able to advance through levels based on their skill level and luck. However, the fun game
aspect is something that we are struggling with. We attempted to make the game engaging by
adding different guises. The players become top secret detectives, and can advance up the ranks.
Also, the interview process is meant to be an enjoyable time to get to know their classmates
while answering lighthearted questions.
Solution/Rationale:
We will increase the level of restrictions to not only oral restrictions, but also writing restrictions
such as restricting note taking during interview. Other restrictions will include more buzzwords
which can be looked into from the game Taboo. Another restriction would be limiting the ways
an interviewer can ask the questions, for example, only using what questions. One of the
higher levels will involve answering the questions only by motions and no words. In order to
account for breaking the restrictions, the players will be set back 10 seconds in the interview
process and they will be held accountable by their partner. The fun aspect will be emphasized in
the interview process rather than in the writing portion, because the key focus of the game is to
build empathy, not writing skills. More time will be spent interviewing with a suggested
questions list to help facilitate conversation. However, the idea to extend the time is unclear
because the prototype is yet to be tested with the targeted age group.
Dimension 5: Customization
Definition of Dimension:
Players can customize a game to fit their learning and playing styles. Games have different
difficulty levels, and many good games allow players to solve problems in different ways.
Players can try out new styles, thanks to the risk-taking principles above.
Problems Uncovered:
In order to accommodate the students of various backgrounds, more diversity in topics will be
needed. The game is lacking some dramatic elements that is important to engage the players.
Our main concern is that our game does not accommodate for special education students and
therefore we need to mend/ provide solutions for a more inclusive classroom.

Solution/Rationale:
To incorporate more customization within our game we could include different levels of
difficulty for students, who are more advanced in their writing skills. To incorporate
customization for each level of difficulty we decided to add different numbers of restrictions to
accommodate for the amount of challenge for each player. To also encourage engagement for
different players, the teacher will pick and choose which dramatic elements he/she will decide to
incorporate within the game depending on their classroom settings. These options will include
whether the teacher wants to add music during game play or not or which aesthetics the teacher
wants to use (badge, magnifying glass, notebook, hat, fancy pen, flashlight, handcuffs, etc.), or
whether the teacher wants to randomize or select which students will be on the judging
panelist. Also, we allow for different levels to be rewarded differently to customize the
learning and playing styles (Gee et al., 2005) of different players. More topics will be created to
accommodate for different areas of building empathy within the players because each student
will reciprocate differently to each given topic, including positive topics that touch on sensibility
within a player.
We decided to approach the problem dealing with special education students by creating an
accommodations document to be used within the game to meet their needs. It is important for
special education students to be taught skills needed for success in a classroom (Special
Education Guide, 2016), such as listening skills. Therefore, children that have short attention
spans will be challenged with listening restrictions. For example, the restriction would say that
they cannot speak when the other person is speaking or they cannot ask another question until
their partner answers them. In addition, setting up structure (Special Education Guide, 2016) to
help guide through any special challenges are vital for success within a classroom. Therefore, to
accommodate for special education students who have a hard time creating sentences or struggle
with writing skills will have a set template, sort of like Mad-Lib, where they need to fill in blanks
to exemplify how a flowing paragraph looks like. In addition, specific kind of questions that they
could ask will be included-- suggestive questions to have a guideline on what to ask.

References
Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2015, September 16). Digital Games,
Design, and Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 86(1), 1-44.
Fullerton, T., Swain, C., & Hoffman, S. (2008). Game design workshop: A Playcentric Approach
to Creating Innovative Games (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier Morgan Kaufmann.
Gee, James Paul. (2005). Good Video Games and Good Learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(2).
Groff, J., Clarke-Midura, J., Owen, V. E., Rosenheck, L., Beall, M. (2015). Better learning
in games: A balanced design lens for a new generation of learning games. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Education Arcade and Learning Games Network.
Nakamura, Jeanne. "Chapter 16." Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology: The
Collected Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. By Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Berlin: New
York, 2014. 239-51. Print.
Special Education Guide | Resources for Parents and Instructors. (n.d.). Retrieved November 03,
2016, from http://www.specialeducationguide.com/
Virginia Department of Education. (2010). English standards of learning: Curriculum
framework
2010. Richmond, VA.
Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., . . . Yukhymenko, M.
(2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for
education. Review of Educational Research, 82, 61-89.

Graces Research on Challenge & Flow

Dimension

Definition

Problems Uncovered

Proposed solutions

Challenge/flow

Flow is the perceived

challenges that are
engaging according
to each players
appropriate level of
capacity. It also
includes working with
clear goals and
immediate feedback
about the progress
being made. With the
progress made,
players regularly
adjust their actions to
fit the feedback. Also
the challenges get
progressively difficult
as it builds a level of
engagement. The
right amount of flow
leads to intrinsic
motivation, separate
from an extrinsic
reward. The players
find the game
intrinsically
rewarding. Another
large component to
flow is the level of
fun in the game,
which leads to a loss
of reflective selfconsciousness and
a distortion of
temporal experience

The challenging
aspects of the game
are mostly covered
by the aspect of the
restrictions. Each
level incorporates a
progressively more
and more difficult
way to interview the
subject. Players are
able to advance
through levels based
on their skill level
and luck.

We will increase
level of restrictions to
not only oral
restrictions, but also
writing restrictions
such as taking away
the notes section for
the higher levels.
Other restrictions will
include more
buzzwords which
can be looked into
from the game
Taboo. Another
restriction is making
the questions start
off with something
such as start every
question with what
do you.

(Reading from
Nakamura &
Csikszentmihalyi,
2014)

However, the fun

game aspect is
something that we
are struggling with.
We attempted to
make the game
engaging by adding
different guises. The
players become top
secret detectives,
and can advance up
the ranks. Also, the
interview process is
meant to be an
enjoyable time to get
to know their
classmates while
answering
lighthearted
questions.

2. The fun aspect will

be emphasized in
the interview process
rather than in the
writing portion,
because the key
focus of the game is
to build empathy, not
writing skills. More
time will be spent
interviewing with
perhaps a suggested
questions list to help
facilitate
conversation.
However, the idea to
extend the time is
unclear because the

prototype is yet to be
tested with the
targeted age group.
3. With every
restriction that is
broken, the players
will be set back 10
seconds in the
interview process.
4. One of the higher
levels will involve
answering the
questions only by
motions and no
words.

Shelbys Research on Just-in-time / On Demand

Dimension

Definition

Problems Uncovered

Solution/Rationale

Just-in-time / On
Demand

Information either
Just in time, that is,
right when players
need and can use it;
or on demand, that
is, when the player
feels a need for it,
wants it, is ready for
it, and can make
good use of it

During playtesting
players did not have
the just in time
information. Instead
they had a bulk of
information they had
to work through.

Teacher kit will

include instructions to
monitor player
activity. Specifically
in classrooms where
students may need
extra assistance, the
teacher offers on
demand assistance
during the interview
portion of each
round. If a player
does not understand
the mission,
terminology, or the
restriction, the
teacher may provide
an explanation and if
necessary, an
example. Teacher =
bank of knowledge.
Provides scaffolded
on demand
instruction as game
is gradually
introduced over time.
Grounded in
cognitive science
(Gee).

From Learning
Principles (Gee,
2005, p.36)
Referenced:
(Belman & Flanagan,
2010)

Usually during a
challenging portion of
a game when the
player is faced with a
new obstacle, or an
obstacle with
increased difficulty,
where skill integration
or decision making is
unclear.
Just in time is when
instructions, hints, or
information are given
to the player when he
or she needs it most.
On Demand means
the information or
extra assistance is
available to the
player when
requested by the
player.

Currently Undercover
Detectives provides
on demand
information with the
overly complex rules
and regulations
located within each
player's folder. This
document provides
guidance but does
not offer specific
assistance for
conquering new
obstacles. For
example, a level 4
detective does not
have information
available to him or
her about how to
function under his or
her new restrictions.
During playtesting on
demand information
was available
because our group
members acted as
the teacher.
Otherwise, referring
to the rules and
regulations in each
player folder was the
only available source
of information.
Feedback -

Reflection discussion
time period once a
month to reflect
directly about
empathy skills,
emphasize
similarities, discuss
difficulties and/or
surprises (Belman &
Flanagan, 2010).
Increases empathy
and effectiveness of
learning goals AND

information on
performance is given
after the fact during
the scoring portion of
the game. Given the
longevity of
gameplay as well as
the relatively slow
sleep of leveling up,
this feedback is
applicable knowledge
players can use
during their next
obstacle/round. Also,
there is an
assumption that
players may talk with
each other about how
they dealt with
different restrictions.
This communication
will yield improved
strategy

gives opportunity to
learn from each
others strategies.
Supplemental to
feedback inherent in
scoring portion.

Rachels Research on Customization

Dimension/ Reading

Customization
From Good Video Games and Good Learning
(Gee et al., 2005)
With mention of:
Classroom Management: 7 Tips from an
Experienced Teacher
(2016)

Definition

Players can customize a game to fit their

learning and playing styles. Games have
different difficulty levels, and many good
games allow players to solve problems in
different ways. Players can try out new styles,
thanks to the risk-taking principles above.

Problems Uncovered

To incorporate more customization within our

game we could include different levels of
difficulty for students, who are more
advanced in their writing skills. Also, our
game needs more variety within the assigned
topics to each student, so, that each it will
accommodate to a variety of student
backgrounds. Another aspect we need to
focus on is how to incorporate dramatic
elements to increase the engagement of all
players. Lastly, our main concern with
customization is how to allow and mend our
game to be a more inclusive classroom game
for special education students. We would
have to brainstorm different options for
components of the game to accommodate
for special education students.

Proposed Solutions/ Rationale

To incorporate customization for each level of

difficulty we decided to add different numbers
of restrictions to accommodate for the
amount of challenge for each player. To also
encourage engagement for different players,
the teacher will pick and choose, which
dramatic elements he/she will decide to
incorporate within the game depending on
their classmate settings. These options will
include whether the teacher wants to add

music during game play or not or which

aesthetics the teacher wants to use (badge,
magnifying glass, notebook, hat, fancy pen,
flashlight, handcuffs, etc.) or whether the
teacher wants to randomize or select, which
students will be on the judging panelist.
Also, we could allow for different levels to be
rewarded differently to customize the
learning and playing styles (2005) of
different players. We could, also, create more
topics to accommodate for different areas of
building empathy within the players because
each student will reciprocate differently to
each given topic, including positive topics that
touch on sensibility within a player.
We decided to approach the problem dealing
with special education students by
implementing accommodations within the
game to meet their needs:
1. It is important for special education
students to be taught skills needed
for success in a classroom (2016),
such as listening skills:
a. Therefore, with children that
have a hard time listening or
paying attention to their peers,
they will be challenged with
listening restrictions. For
example, the restriction would
say that they cannot speak
when the other person is
speaking or they cannot ask
another question until their
partner answers them.
2. Setting up structure (2016) to help
guide through any special challenges
are vital for success within a
classroom:
a. To accommodate for special
education students who have
a hard time creating sentences
or struggle with writing skills
will have a set template, sort
of like Mad-Lib, where they
need to fill in blanks to
exemplify how a flowing

paragraph looks like. In

addition, we could include
specific kind of questions they
could ask-- suggestive
questions to have a guideline
on what to ask.

Mary Ellens Research on Dramatic Arc

Dimension

Definition

Problems Uncovered

Solution/Rationale

Premise

The premise acts as

a games background
story; it is the story
behind what players
are doing within the
game. The premise is
designed to engage
players more
effectively.

Overall, dramatic
elements need to be
increased in
appropriate places in
our game. We
specifically wanted to
focus on premise
because of the mixed
feedback we
received. Most of the
playtesters enjoyed
our premise - we
received the
comment that the
premise would
engage upper
elementary aged
children. However, it
seems as though the
premise might veil a
slightly less fun game
underneath. We are
concerned that the
players will think that
the game is a thinly
veiled attempt to
encourage them to
write and develop
empathy. In
playtesting, we
attempted to counter
this by creating
detective missions
that were designed to
engage the players
while giving them
directions for what
they should be
interviewing their
partner about. These
detective missions
were unsuccessful;
playtesters were
confused about why

We will keep the

premise simple, since
both simple and
sophisticated game
mechanics can prove
effective (Clark et al.,
2015). Because of
this, we will attempt
not to go overboard
on driving the
premise home. One
specific place we can
simplify our premise
is in the mission
cards. We will delete
the part of the
mission card that
gives background on
the interview relating
to our premise. While
it enhanced our
premise, this
information made our
game confusing.
Since the Clark et al.,
2015 research
demonstrated that
simple game
mechanics can be
just as effective as
sophisticated ones,
we feel justified in
removing this
information. We also
decided to take away
music during player
interviews, since we
had complaints about
it and now know that
a simpler game
mechanic can be just
as effective (Clark et
al., 2015).
Successful premise

their partners were

supposedly criminals.
Playtesters were
subsequently
confused about
whether they should
answer the prompt
from their own
perspective, or if they
were supposed to
take on the role of a
criminal character.
Most importantly, we
need to find a way to
incorporate premise
into all aspects of the
game. As the game
currently stands,
scoring does not
have any premise
elements associated
with it. We need to
ensure that the
premise is evident in
all aspects of our
game: the
introduction, the
rules, the interview,
the writing, and the
scoring.

can bridge the gap

between formal and
dramatic elements in
the game and
heighten the
experience of players
(Fullerton, 95-6), so
we plan to
incorporate premise
(a dramatic element)
into some of the
formal elements of
the game, such as
scoring and the rules
and procedures. For
scoring, we want to
build out the idea that
a jury of the students
peers is evaluating
their detective work
(empathy piece) as
an assessment to
determine if the
student is ready for
promotion in the
detective agency.
Some concrete ways
to make the judging
align more with our
theme include: label
the jury as the
supervising panel
and give them
badges when they
judge their
classmates pieces,
and give all students
a tangible reminder
of their level in the
game (badge, hat,
notebook, magnifying
glass). Our
introductory video for
the game will build
drama for the
students. Finally, we
plan to have another,

very brief reminder

video of one of our
game designers
(pretending to be a
top detective from
our agency)
reminding students
that they need to go
undercover as their
partners as best as
they can if they want
a promotion. The
idea coming from us
rather than from the
students own
teachers might give
more of a sense of
urgency to the game,
specifically in the
interviewing and
writing portions.

Sources to Use:
Game Design Workshop Pg. 93-96
That article that said that the dramatic elements can be scaled back (Clark et al., 2015)

Lees Research on CAF

Dimension

Definition

Problems Uncovered

Solution/Rationale

Conceptual
Assessment
Framework (CAF)

The CAF is a design

framework for
viewing learning
games which
identifies three key
elements of all
educational games:
the content model,
the task model, and
the evidence model.
The goal of the CAF
model is to align the
learning goals, tasks
and outcomes of a
game with the
learning experience
of the user. Doing so
will produce more
meaningful
educational
gameplay as well as
a more effective
assessment of the
students playing the
game.

Given how our

content and task
models were created
such that they would
align, our focus
during this evaluation
was upon the
evidence model,
which we felt needed
improvement.

1. Although the only

physical artifacts
produced by the
game will be the
written responses of
the students,
teachers will be
available to observe
a rich set of data
unfolding before their
eyes during
gameplay (namely,
when students are
engaged in the
interview activity).
Young et al. describe
how game-based
assessment tools
should capture the
rich, individualized,
situated data
produced in vivo
gameplay (2012).
Empirically-derived
characteristics of
students with low and
high empathic
competence will be
provided to teachers
to empower them to
productively observe
and assess their
students as the
students engage in
gameplay.

From Better learning

in games: A balanced
design lens for a new
generation of
learning games
(Groff et al., 2015)
With mention of:
A review of trends in
serious gaming for
education. (Young et
al., 2012)
English Standards of
Learning Curriculum
Framework (Board of
Education,
Commonwealth of
Virginia, 2010)

Content Model:
defines the
knowledge, skills and
abilities targeted by
the game. In other
words, it is a
description of the
learning goals of the
game being
designed. Learning
constructs are
defined and
separated out into
their various parts.
Included is a
description of the
different levels of
proficiency for each

1. The only explicit

data points
produced during
gameplay for
interpretation in the
evidence model are
the written responses
by players during the
Undercover Work
and My Profile
activities. Although
these are interpreted
by our evidence
model to understand
and assess student
progress in empathic
and writing skill
development, we
believe that the game
can and should
include more
indicators of student
progress outside of
the written materials
alone.
2. We currently do
not have guidelines
in place to assess
student progression
with respect to the
writing skills we hope
to teach them (our

2. To improve
internal, game-based
assessment of writing
skills, we will more
explicitly connect the
games prompts to
the 6th grade writing
Standards of

learning objective.
Task Model:
describes the key
mechanics and
procedures a player
will execute during
gameplay that relate
to the learning goals.
The task model must
define how each task
is carried out by the
player, and how such
an action or behavior
will produce the
evidence needed to
assess if a learning
objective was taught
or not. The task
model includes a
description for how
situations will be
structured in order
that artifacts/data are
produced for
back-end
interpretation.
Evidence Model:
defines the
observations and
behaviors of game
players that can be
interpreted to
evaluate their
learning of the certain
skills outlined in the
content model. In
addition to describing
which particular
observations will be
used as evidence of
learning, the
evidence model puts
forth guidelines for
how such data is to
be interpreted as well

secondary learning
objective). Our
scoring system,
updated based upon
feedback from
playtesters, presents
a more nuanced and
informative structure
for evaluating the
development of
empathy, but it does
not specifically
address how
students writing skills
are improving.

Learning (SOLs) in
Virginia and include
the dimensions used
by the Virginia
Department of
Education when
assessing student
writing. Implementing
this interpretation
structure will allow
teachers to analyze
data produced during
gameplay to inform
their understanding
of where each
student stands with
his/her writing ability.
We chose not to
include formal
evaluative
components of
writing in the
democratized scoring
process that is
utilized for empathy
assessment because
it may cause
students to
disengage from
gameplay (since it is
not fully integrated
into the mechanisms
associated with our
games premise) and
because the teacher
is better qualified to
conduct this sort of
academic
assessment.
Connection of
Evidence Model to
Content Model:
Based upon the
judgment of the
class/body of players

as how the content

model should be
updated based upon
these interpretations.

as a whole, each
player will receive
points toward a
promotion within the
detective agency. If
an individual does
not reach the 10
point threshold for
the next rank/level,
he/she must repeat
the going
undercover process
at their previous rank
in the agency in order
to further practice
and master the data
collection and
expression process.
Once mastery is
achieved at a certain
level, ranking is
increased and
behavioral
restrictions are levied
or expanded.