See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309385174

Board Games as a Platform For Collaborative Learning

Conference Paper · October 2016

CITATIONS READS
2 2,458

1 author:

Andrew J Hunsucker
Indiana University Bloomington
17 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Augmented Reality in the Eskenazi Museum of Art View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew J Hunsucker on 23 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running Head: BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Board games as a platform for Collaborative Learning

Andrew J Hunsucker

Indiana University

School of Informatics

901 E 10th St,

Bloomington, IN

The author can be contacted at: ahunsuck@iu.edu.

BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

ABSTRACT

In this paper I will describe the current state of commercially produced board games and how they can be

used to study collaborative learning. Board games are analog systems designed to create a gameplay experience.

They include specific rules that players must translate in order to play the game. While board games come in a

wide variety of types, their rules are constructed very similarly, including a game overview, order of play, and

victory conditions. In a study conducted over 6 weeks, I examined what strategies players used to explain the

game to others and learn the game for themselves. These sessions revealed many similarities between explanation

strategies and common thinking in collaborative learning. I will explore these similarities and how various

frameworks and theories can be used to describe player behavior during a board game play session.
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Introduction

Board games are carefully constructed analog systems designed to create a gameplay experience. Much

like digital systems, these analog systems provide an interface, software, and processing power. The interface is

the board and pieces, the software is the provided rules(Looney, 2011), and the processing power is provided by

the players. In this case, players must internalize the rules in order to create the gameplay experience. Each

gameplay session involves players either learning rules from scratch, teaching a new player the rules, or

refreshing experienced players about the rules. These sessions provide an excellent opportunity to study

collaborative learning.

To begin discussing collaborative learning, I will apply this definition from Romero(Romero, Usart, Ott,

& Earp, 2012) stating that “Collaborative Learning is a learning situation in which more than one student

participates in a common learning activity engaging them in pursuit of a common goal.”(Romero et al., 2012)

I will use this definition to explore how board game players use the rule book and other resources to learn

a game system collaboratively.

The value of collaborative (sometimes called cooperative) learning has been explored by Vygotsky

among others (Dillenbourg, 1999; Jeong & Chi, 1997; Roger & Johnson, 1994; Roschelle, 1992; Sharan, 1980;

Vygotsky, 1978). Much of the research done in the area of collaborative learning recently has focused on

computer mediated or computer supported collaborative learning(Alavi, 1994; Bruffee, 1984; Guzdial & Carroll,

2002; Kreijns, Kirschnew, & Jochems, 2003; Moraveji, Lindgren, & Pea, 2009; Saab & Joolingen, 2005). There

have been several references to game based learning (Mahmud, Mubin, Shahid, & Martens, 2008; Piirainen-

Marsh & Tainio, 2009; Romero et al., 2012), and references to software designed to learn how to play board

games like chess and checkers(Samuel, 2000; Thrun, 1995) There have also been several academic references to

commercially produced board games, including a study of the emergence of hobby gaming(Woods, 2012), a study

on the implicit rules of board gaming(Bergstrom, 2010), a study of how electronic visualizations could enhance

collaboration in board games(Zhang, Liu, & Shi, 2012), and material on how players can internalize mistaken
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

rules(Berland, Lee, & DuMont, 2010). However, I found no references in the literature about commercially

produced board games as they relate to collaborative learning.

I conducted an observational study of board game players as they learned new games, and taught familiar

games to new players. I found in the study that many of the findings and goals of collaborative learning research

could be understood by observing participant behavior during a board game session. In this paper I will examine

these results, and introduce a better understanding of the current state of commercially produced board games in

order to explore new resources for researchers.

Understanding Board Games

Board games come in many types and varieties. It is difficult to define them precisely when games as

diverse as Chess(an ancient strategy game where two players attempt to capture each other’s king),

Monopoly(Darrow, 1933)(a classic property management game in which players attempt to earn the most

money), Settlers of Catan(Teuber, 1995)(a more modern resource management game where players attempt to

build the largest settlement) and Agricola(Rosenberg, 2007)(a recent worker placement game where players try to

create the most productive farm) all qualify as board games. Many other authors have attempted to define

games(Abt, 1970; Costikyan, 1994; Daviau, 2011; Ernest, 2011; Forbeck, 2011; Suits, 1990), and the definition

has been deconstructed in other work(Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). While these definitions are for games in

general and are not specific to board games, they can be understood to include board games. For example, this

definition from Bernard Suits:

“To play a game is to engage in activity directed towards bringing about a certain state of affairs, using

only means permitted by the rules, where the rules prohibit more efficient in favor of less efficient means, and

where such rules are accepted simply because they make possible such activity.” (Suits, 1990)

First, Suits describes “bringing about a certain state of affairs”(Suits, 1990), in the case of a board game,

this would be the victory conditions of the game. These can be represented by scoring a certain number of points,

or playing a certain number of turns. He then notes that “only means permitted by the rules”(Suits, 1990) are to be

used, noting that more efficient means are prohibited. For example, many games use a scoring track that players
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

move a token along, indicating their score. The most efficient method of scoring points would be for players to

simply move their token to the highest space available. However, this does not mean they are playing the game.

Finally he notes that the “rules are accepted simply because they make possible such an activity”(Suits, 1990).

This indicates that without the rules creating boundaries and restrictions that the players must adhere to, there

would be no game.

What Suits avoids here is the social aspect of games. There are many single player games available, but

this paper will focus on multi-player games. Single player games will not allow us to examine collaboration.

This definition from Greg Costikyan, a game designer, is also helpful: “A game is a form of art in which

participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a

goal.” (Costikyan, 1994)

The most important part of this definition for board games is the idea of ‘game tokens’. Taking this

further, we can describe them as ‘physical game tokens’. For a game to qualify as a board game, it must be played

physically. This does not discount the possibility of digital versions of board games, which are becoming more

popular on mobile platforms. But a board game must be capable of being played without digital means.

Leveraging Suits and Costikyan’s work brings us to the following definition:

A board game is a curated set of physical objects that are paired with a game system that governs

what interactions participants, termed players, may have with them.

The curation is done by the game designer, who decides which objects to include. These objects, like the

board, cards, and tokens are described more fully in another section.

It is also important to note that the game system is paired with a particular set of objects. While the same

set of objects could theoretically be used to play many different games (a standard 52 card deck of playing cards,

for example), a particular game system must have a particular set of objects. Attempting to play a card game like

Poker with a deck of 20 cards would no longer be Poker.

BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Finally, the game system governs the interactions players may have with them. This hints at Suits

definition wherein certain interactions are prohibited. It also states clearly that participants are required. The game

cannot play itself.

Components

This definition of a board game requires that the game has tangible pieces that are directly manipulated by

the players. It would be helpful to name and define these terms at this point, since I will continually use the

language of board games to describe these components. It is difficult to describe these pieces precisely, because

there are a wide variety of board game types, so for each component, I will attempt to describe examples and

counter-examples, however it is impossible to explore all of the variation in board game components in a paper of

this length.

Board

When used, a board is usually a flat piece of cardboard or sometimes plastic that is used by the board

game system in order to keep track of the current game state. During the game, the board acts as an external

representation of the game state(Ertl, Kopp, & Mandl, 2005).

The board is placed in the center of the table in reach and view of all players. The board changes

throughout the game as players take their turns and manipulate their positions. Traditionally, the board is shared

by all players.

In a game like Monopoly, the board has a series of spaces around the outside edge of the board that

represent various properties the players can purchase when other game conditions are met. The spaces also remind

players of various required actions like taking $200 out of the bank when passing the “Go” space.

However, many board games change the nature of the board. Puerto Rico(Seyfarth, 2002)and Agricola

both include individual boards for each player as well as a central board that includes a record of possible actions.

Each player takes actions that affect their own board, and use the central board to determine what actions are

available.
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Some games use modular boards that can change each time the game is played. Settlers of Catan uses

hexagonal tiles that can be placed adjacent to each other at the beginning of each game in a specific pattern to

form the board. This allows players to have a different experience playing the game each time.

Carcassonne(Wrede, 2000) is a game that allows players to build the board with square tiles. However,

unlike Settlers of Catan, where the board is built at the beginning of the game, Carcassonne allows players to

build the board during gameplay. Players draw a tile at the start of their turn, and then place it adjacent to other

tiles based on various rules in the game. Tiles depict either roads, fields, rivers, or towns which can match up to

other tiles in the game. Players can use the tiles to create an exquisite corpse-like(Schnieder, 1948) image during

the game.

Player Token

Player tokens are used to identify individual players. Frequently color is used to differentiate players.

Other times, character figures are used to represent a player. In addition, many games have players take different

tokens of the same color to represent different actions and abilities in the game. In this case, players don’t have a

single player token, but have a color that represents them in the game.

Other games do not involve colors or player tokens and players simply keep track of their own abilities

and position by placing cards and tokens in front of themselves.

In Monopoly, players have a single token that represents them throughout the game. These tokens are

shaped like various objects including cars, shoes, and animals. This piece is moved around the board to represent

the player’s current location. The player’s location determines what properties they can purchase, what rent they

might have to pay to other players, and where they will begin the next turn.

The game of Chess includes a standard set of pieces that each have their own movement rules. Bishops

may only move diagonally, while Rooks may only move in straight lines.
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

In the game Takenoko(Bauza, 2011) (see Figure 1), players don’t have an individual color, but a symbol

that exists on tokens they use to keep track of actions they have taken on their turn. However, all activity on the

board is shared among players, so these symbols have no effect on gameplay.

Cards

Besides player tokens, cards are commonly used by board games. Cards in board games are somewhat

analogous to a standard 52 card deck of playing cards in that they have play information on one side, and identical

backs for secrecy. More complex games can use many different decks of cards that all have different purposes.

These cards can represent special powers the players have access to, items that they can carry, and sometimes

even represent the number of turns remaining in a game. Cards are sometimes kept secret from other players, but

other times cards are public information, either required by the rules, or done by common agreement among the

players.

Cards are usually shuffled to ensure randomness in their order, but some games require players to put

cards in a specific order to be drawn at specific times during the game. When players take a card from the deck,

this is called drawing. Their collection of cards is called their hand. When players use a card during the game, this

is called playing the card. When players remove a card from their hand without using it, this is called discarding.

The game Arkham Horror(Launius & Wilson, 2005) uses cards extensively. Players have cards that

represent special abilities, physical items, magical items, enemies, and more. The game comes with 200 cards (not

to mention the numerous expansions. Some of these cards can be used to expand the story through the game.

In some cases, the cards used in the game could easily be replaced with some other token, cards are

simply used to keep track of some resource.

Other tokens

Because players are in control of the entire interface and memory of the game system, many games use

additional tokens that represent various resources in the game.

Such tokens might be identical, or might have different values. Many games use tokens to keep track of

money. These might come in different denominations depending on the needs of the game.
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Such tokens are often used as a form of external cognition(Scaife & Rogers, 1996). In the game Agricola,

at the beginning of each turn certain resources are placed on the board, available for players to take during their

turn. However, if the resources from the previous turn weren’t taken, they remain on the board, and the new

resources are added to the supply, giving players an incentive to take them on the current turn. The tokens allow

for players to quickly understand how many resources they can acquire by performing their action on the space.

Gameplay Session

In order to play a board game, players must follow rules provided in a printed manual. These rules

normally include setup steps, an overview of play, and a highly structured set of rules, giving specific steps for the

players to follow during play, including end conditions and winning conditions. Rules also frequently include

examples of play, and even strategy tips to give players a way to better understanding of what choices during the

game will lead to victory. Some games are competitive, in which each player is attempting to win the game by

themselves, while others are collaborative, in which players work together in order to achieve a goal. Finally,

some games allow a single player to take on a role against all other players in the game. I examined each of these

types during this study.

The setup rules require players to place the board, tokens and cards in specific locations so that the rest of

the rules can be executed correctly. The game overview generally gives players a sense of how the game is to be

played in a broad sense. The overview doesn’t give details on play, but can give details on the theme and any

story that is being used in the game. The gameplay rules give players information on the order of play, both how

players are to take turns and what actions players may or must take during their turns.

A standard board game system involves a structured set of actions that each player repeats over several

rounds until an ending condition or victory condition is met. For example, in the game Lords of Waterdeep (see

Figure 2), each player has a number of tokens that they can use to claim actions on the board. Each player plays a

single token, uses the action in that space, and then play passes to the left. The round ends when each player has

used all of their tokens.

BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

In this game, there are 8 rounds of play. At the end of the 8th round the game ends and the players score

any bonus points. During each round, the players work towards various goals provided by ‘Quests’ that provide

additional rules. This adds to the variability and re-playability of the game.

Games have various levels of complexity in their turn order, some as simple as having a player draw a

single card, and playing a single card, others giving players a limited set of points to spend on the available

actions, or allowing each player to perform the action selected by a single player. For example, in the game

Puerto Rico, when a player selects a role (which allows a particular action), all of the players perform that same

action in order. Then the next player selects a role, which all of the players use.

Players must learn the order of play, and available actions as best they can before starting play. However,

frequently in our study (which I will discuss in detail later), I found that players opted to cut rules explanation

short in order to simply begin playing.

Just as important as understanding the order of play and available actions is the value of each of these

actions, and the goal of the game. In our study I learned that many players must understand the goal of the game

before the rest of the rules can make sense to them. While an attempt can be made to understand strategy during

rules explanation, I found that players generally discussed strategy choices amongst each other during gameplay,

even when doing so might help another player.

However, the rules are not always entirely contained within the rulebook. Various situations in the game

will allow players to alter the rules to give themselves a temporary or permanent advantage for a particular

strategy. Many games include cards that the players can play at different times and these cards can change the

various rules for a single player or all players. Some games take this mechanic to the extreme.

In the game Fluxx(Looney & Looney, 1997), for example, the rules allow a player to take one card from a

central pile available to all players, and then play a single card from their hand. However, new rules are contained

within the cards, allowing players to alter the rules, including victory conditions throughout the game. Cards can

allow all players to draw multiple cards per turn, or force them to discard after each turn, or take cards from other

players.
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Because of this, game designers must attempt to create a modular system in the game that allows players

to understand these cards simply by reading the information provided on the cards. The rules are the only way the

game designer has to communicate with any given player(Yu, 2011). Many modern games include appendices in

their rules that include information on individual cards to help players understand these special rules changes.

However, because some games can come with dozens or even hundreds of these special cards, it is not always

feasible to explain each card individually in the rulebook.

During this process, players collaboratively learn the rules of the game. From Rochelle & Teasley:

“Collaboration is a coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of a continued attempt to construct and

maintain a shared conception of a problem.”(Roschelle & Teasley, 1995)

A distinction here between the collaborative and competitive natures of board games must be made.

While many board games are in fact competitive, the learning process is completely collaborative. Once players

understand the rules together, then they can begin exploring the competitive system.

Rochelle & Teasley further describe a Joint Problem Space (JPS):

“The JPS is a shared knowledge structure that supports problem solving activity by integrating:

(a) goals

(b) descriptions of the current problem state

(c) awareness of available problem solving actions;

(d) associations that relate goals, features of the current problem state, and available

actions.”(Roschelle & Teasley, 1995)

These criteria can be directly mapped to board games. In order to begin playing a game, players must

understand the victory condition (goals), how to use the board (descriptions of the current problem state), what

actions are available to them (available problem solving actions), and how these items interrelate in order to create

the game system (association between goals, current problem state and available actions).
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

With this model, board games can be compared to a collaborative problem solving space as described by

Rochelle & Teasley. Their idea of the shared conception of a problem is essential to board games as well. All

players must have the same understanding of the rules, turn order, and goals.(Daviau, 2011; Dillenbourg, 1999) If

not, players become confused and the game must stop until the players come back into alignment.

Regardless of how clear or precise the rules are; gameplay sessions often include rule mistakes. These can

be simple lapses of attention, where the player was required to return a token in exchange for taking an action, but

simply forgot. Other players might recognize this and remind the player, but they might not. Other times, players

might miss a rule and ignore it for an entire game.(Berland et al., 2010)

In Suburbia for example, players must adjust their income and reputation each turn depending on actions

that they took. The rules specify that these adjustments happen in a specific order. If players change them in a

different order, or forget to change them, it will affect the end result of the game.

Unlike errors in other interactive systems, which might warn the user, or refuse to perform an action,

players of board games can easily bend or break the rules however they like. Interestingly, mistakes like these in

the game rarely affect the flow of play in the game. While they obviously change the end result, many players

don’t even realize they have made a mistake until the next time they read the rules, or encounter a player who

challenges their understanding of the rules.

Players begin taking their turns with their best understanding of the game. Board games are recursive

systems, so players repeat the same turn order each round. This allows for players to learn the system well enough

after 2-3 rounds to feel confident in their procedural ability to play the game.

Play proceeds until the game ends, and players discover who won the game. Sometimes the game ends as

a result of a player completing a victory condition, which makes the winner obvious. Other games force the

players to complete scoring at the end of the game, hiding the winner. Many games mix these two strategies,

giving players a public scoring track, but leaving bonus scoring for the end, keeping players in suspense about

who has won in order to avoid a king making decision(Pulsipher, 2011; Tidball, 2011).
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Board Game Learning Study

To examine how board game players translate printed rules into a gameplay experience, I performed an

observational study in the winter and spring of 2015. In this study, groups of players were presented with a series

of commercially produced board games, and selected one to play. Study participants were a mix of interaction

design students at Indiana University, and local board game players in Bloomington, Indiana. Players had various

levels of experience with board games, but all had played board games in the past.

Games were selected based on the following criteria:

• Commercially produced

• Can be played in under 2 hours (according to the manufacturer)

• Doesn’t include a collectible element

• Includes all original components (including the original rulebook)

• Number of players should be between 2 and 6

Games were required to be commercially produced with all of the original components to maintain

consistency across multiple play sessions. The time limit was instituted to be cognizant of the time subjects had

available, as some board games can take upwards of 3 hours to complete. I avoided collectible games because the

components available could vary greatly depending on a player’s dedication to the game. Finally, I selected a

range of players that would include most games, but would also accurately reflect how many subjects I expected

to have at any session.

Players were provided with a selection of games, but were also allowed to bring their own games. Groups

were as small as 2 and as large as 4 during the study. No restrictions other than the ones listed above were placed

on which game was played during each session, as long as the players came to common agreement.

Players were informed that they were allowed to use any resources they liked in order to learn the game

including the rulebook, previous knowledge of the game, or online resources.

BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

I completed 17 gameplay observation sessions with the study of 11 different games with an average

length of just over 2 hours. 15 people participated in gameplay sessions, including the researcher. Some subjects

participated in multiple sessions, but most only participated for one or two sessions. Sessions were recorded and

notes were kept during the game.

In 8 of the sessions, none of the subjects had any previous experience playing the game, in the other

sessions at least one player had previously played the game at least once.

Players were allowed to leave the game sessions at any time, and in the one instance where a player did

leave, another player took their place and finished the game.

Analysis

I will explore one of the more interesting results by examining a series of play sessions of the game Lords

of Waterdeep. In this series of play sessions, a single player was present at all of them and explained the rules for

all of the sessions. I will refer to this subject as Rules Explainer(RE). Over time, the strategies and confidence of

explanations, and results of play changed dramatically. These sessions will give us our best look at how players

learn how to play board games over time.

Session 1

In the first session, 4 players were present. When selection among 4 different games that were present, the

RE spoke up to mention he had played Lords of Waterdeep once before, and offered to explain the rules after

learning them. The other players agreed to this, and he opened the rulebook to begin the setup phase.

During this session, the RE had a difficult time getting players to focus on rules explanation, as they were

talking amongst themselves about unrelated matters. This was a common theme during the study, as many players

had a difficult time listening to a rules explanation.

The RE began by explaining the game flow to the best of his memory, rather than looking up the rules in

the rule book. In addition, he described the results of play rather than specific rule mechanics.
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Players at the table regularly interrupted, asking questions of the RE. The RE dutifully answered these

questions as they came up, rather than attempting to focus the discussion in a direction that would lead to the best

learning result. At this early stage of the learning process, it is likely because he did not have enough confidence

in his own understanding of the game system to know the best way to explain it.

In this session, the rule book worked as a manual for the game system. 3 of the 4 players had no

knowledge of the game. Without the rule book, the players would not have been able to play the game.

Every session I observed during this study which involved players who had not played the game before

proceeded with a single player taking on the role of learning and explaining the rules. (see Figure 3) This required

one player to spend time reading the rule book to translate the game system into a play experience for all of the

other players.

Players recognize the burden, and seem to understand that these rules explainers are essential for learning

the game. In this session, a player at the table thanked the RE for reading and explaining the rules. Certain

players gravitate towards rules explanation, and other players shy away. During a different session, as other

players were reading the rules to understand before explaining, a player asked “Why is no one explaining the

rules?” For this player, the method of learning how to play a game does not involve the rule book, but requires a

knowledgeable teacher.

While working to setup the game himself, the RE also asked other players to perform setup steps that

didn’t need to happen in any particular order. For example, he asked other players to shuffle card decks that

needed to be randomized, and place tokens on clearly marked spaces. The other players at the table did not object

to this division of labor, and I saw this same behavior happen in each game session.

One player in particular was continually distracted during this rules explanation, which clearly made it

more difficult for the RE. In one instance, he specifically scolded this player, reminding them that they would not

understand the game when it came time to play. As this player continued to disrupt the rules explanation, the RE

suggested that all of the other players decide on a food order that had been previously discussed, and give him

time to read the rules more carefully.

BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

In this instance, it is clear that the cognitive load of attempting to understand the rules, setting up the

game, and answering questions was more than the RE could manage. I observed here that the RE attempted to

reduce the cognitive load to increase his chances of success.(Sweller, 1994) Sweller discusses the difference

between controlled and automatic information. Controlled information is carefully considered, while automatic

information is quickly processed. In his view, skills must be practiced before they can become automatic. This

was seen during my study as well. For most players, understanding the steps of the game could quickly become

automatic, within 2-3 rounds of play. But each move was carefully considered, especially as the game progressed

and the board situation became more complex.

Rules explanation during this session lasted for approximately 20 minutes. At this point, one of the

players at the table asked the RE if instead of continuing with the explanation, they could simply begin play. This

was a common theme during games when players did not have advance knowledge of the game. This reveals that

players have a limit to how much rules explanation they could stand before needed to play a game.

Gokhale suggests that instructors in collaborative learning should be working improve their students

ability to learn(Gokhale, 1995). The RE also must work in the same way. During rules explanation the RE worked

to build a shared understanding of the material. However, in order for the game to function, each player had to

fully understand the game.

Interestingly, even after agreeing to begin the game, rules explanation continued during each turn

completed during the first round. In addition, strategy was discussed at length. Sweller can be used to explain this

behavior as well.(Sweller, 1994)

“Schemas effectively increase the amount of information that can be held in working memory by

chunking individual elements into a single element. A single tree, not thousands of leaves and branches needs to

be remembered; a single word, not the individual letters or marks on a piece of paper need be remembered; the

number of words on a page may exceed working memory but the number of ideas or concepts may not.”(Sweller,

1994)
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

From our study, the rule books that players used to learn can be compared to schemas. While the entire

rule book cannot be processed immediately, it is constructed in such a way that a player can learn enough

individual elements to create a memory of the entire game system, transferring the elements from working

memory to long-term memory.

Strategy discussions are important to note during game play because once players understand the

mechanics of the rules, they turn to strategy discussions. While rules explanation gives players information about

what actions they can perform, the order they take these actions in, and what the results of these actions are,

strategy discussions reveal that players are beginning to consider the value of each of their actions in working

towards the end goal of the game.

By the end of the 2nd round of play (the game included 8 rounds), rules questions stopped and players

only discussed the strategy of their decisions. This was a common occurrence during every gameplay session.

While the RE was overwhelmed with questions during the setup and explanation, these questions stopped after

players had a chance to play several rounds. One possible explanation comes from Bruner who suggests that

multiple perspectives of the same problem might enhance problem solving skills in a particular domain(Bruner,

1985). From that perspective, it could be argued that an engaged player could situate themselves in the position of

the current player, and consider possible moves in addition to their own. This could be enhanced during the early

rounds by overt explanation of the possible moves by the RE. In a 4 player game, each player would see 4

different attempted solutions to a turn every round. This could have the potential to quickly increase their

understanding of the game system.

During the initial rules explanation, all 4 players attempt to learn how to play the game, but only a single

player has access to the information. If each player were to read their own rule book, they would still need to have

discussions to align their own mental models into a single understanding of the game system.(Daviau, 2011;

Falcão & Price, 2009)

During the learning process, many players would explain their thought process out loud. This was not

necessarily done in order to help other players, but rather seemed to help them understand their own choices.
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

These ‘self-elicitations’(Chi, Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994) appeared to improve their own learning along

with helping other players better understand their perspective of the problem.(Lu, 2007)

One last interesting thing happened during this session. At one point, one of the players attempted to play

a card that had not previously come up in the game. This card appeared to give the player a significant advantage

during the round by allowing the player to take additional actions that the other players didn’t have access to.

The other players at the table immediately objected to the original interpretation and began offering their

own interpretations of the card. The RE immediately began searching the rule book for an official explanation, but

none could be found. Players discussed the card for several minutes with no resolution until a player at the table

announced he was looking up an answer online.

The player made a google search of the text on the card and immediately found a discussion thread on the

card. After reading the explanation from the thread, all players immediately accepted the explanation and

continued the game.

This incident revealed several things about the mentality of the players at the table. Even though the

players are collaborating with each other to learn the game, they are also competing against each other to win the

game. In this instance, the players had a difficult time negotiating a resolution to the card because only one player

benefitted.

However, the players were able to easily accept an answer that came from outside the table (either from

the rule book, or an online source), because it was an impartial source. The players did not research whether the

individual that answered the question was credible, or whether other users disagreed with their assessment, they

simply accepted that answer and moved on.

This shows that trust is an important factor in these collaborative learning environments. Stewart Woods

discusses this idea in his book on the culture of board game players:
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

“In the play of board games, the implicit requirement to play by the rules demands a sense of mutual trust

between players, even as the sense of competition embedded in the game structure compels them to pursue the

game goals.”(Woods, 2012)

In this initial session, players had no knowledge of the rules before playing. Now let’s look at a session

where one player had a clear understanding of the game, and another player had a reduced understanding.

Session 2

The second observed session of Lords of Waterdeep involved the same RE from the previous session, and

the researcher. This session was designed to explore how rules explanation improved after a single session. The

researcher had not played the game previously, but observed the previous session, so he had a fair understanding

of the game.

Unlike the previous session, the RE explained the game from memory, not opening the rule book until he

needed to check the amount of gold that each player received at the start of the game. Much like the previous

session, the RE asked the other player to shuffle cards in order to divide the labor to speed up the setup phase.

During this session, rules explanation took around 10 minutes before players began to play. In addition,

rules questions were very rare after the first round. Clearly prior knowledge was a factor during this session. Prior

knowledge is a well explored concept in collaborative learning(Ertl et al., 2005; Kang & Yoon, 2005). Both

players had an understanding of the game system which lead to a quick explanation of the rules.

In this session, the rule book worked mainly as a reference. The RE didn’t need it for most of the

explanation, and only used it when a particular question came up. It seems likely that having already taught the

material once, the RE was better prepared to explain the material a second time, using both knowledge gained

from teaching the material previously, and from engaging with the game system(Webb, 1989).

Session 3

During the third session, the RE and the researcher played the game Lords of Waterdeep with a third

player who did not have any previous knowledge of the game.
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

In this session, the players with previous play experience collaborated to explain the game to the new

player. Again, the effort to setup the game was divided amongst the players, and the two players explained the

game.

With the collaboration of two players, the explanation of the rules took under 10 minutes, even though

one of the players had no previous knowledge of the game. Prior knowledge again is clearly a factor. In this case I

saw the learning activity change. In the initial session, 4 players attempted to learn the game together. In sessions

2 and 3, players attempted to teach the game to an individual. Here I see that prior knowledge is clearly a benefit

for the individual learner(Ertl et al., 2005). In other sessions, I saw prior knowledge of a single player eased

learning for all other players greatly. However, it is not clear in these cases whether I should consider all other

players as a single entity or as separate entities.

During this play session, the new player complained that while he had a question about a card in his hand,

he was unable to ask it, because it would reveal secret information that he was unwilling to reveal. This also calls

back to the competition factor. If this were a collaborative game, the player would quickly have his question

answered by the experienced player, but because the game was competitive, asking his question would weaken

his position and make it harder for him to win the game.

This reveals a particular weakness in using competitive board games for collaborative learning. Players

are disincentivized to ask questions that would improve their learning. The player in question attempted to find an

answer to their question in the rule book, but was unable to find it. He also did not reveal the card if and when it

was played.

Another interesting moment in this game occurred when a public card appeared that neither of the

experienced players had seen before. Players found an explanation in the rule book, but it lead to a discussion of

what the strategic use of the card would be. Players, including the inexperienced player understood the rules well

enough in order to have a strategic discussion about the card. After several minutes of discussion, the

inexperienced player was able to explain the card by comparing it to a similar mechanic in another game. Players
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

at the table were able to accept this explanation after some additional discussion by coming to common

agreement.(Clark & Schaefer, 1989)

In Kang’s model of exploratory behavior(Figure 4)(Kang & Yoon, 2005) users make use of declarative,

procedural and meta-knowledge in order to understand a particular joint problem space(Roschelle & Teasley,

1995; Sarmiento & Stahl, 2008). For our purposes, declarative knowledge relates directly to how players

understand the rules. Procedural knowledge is related to strategy decisions, or how players choose the best action

from the available choices. Finally, meta-knowledge relates to knowledge players have coming into the game.

In this case, while the new player didn’t have knowledge of the current game, he did have knowledge of

another game which he was able to use in comparison to the current game. In this model, the rule book informs

the player of the declarative knowledge that they will need in order to work in the game system. The rules also

begin to help the player construct procedural knowledge which will help them understand strategy. The

procedural knowledge is enhanced by examining other players(Bruner, 1985), and seeing how they succeed or

fail. The meta-knowledge of other board games is helpful to further enhance procedural knowledge, since players

can transfer that knowledge to other board games.

In this session, a player was able to recognize similarities between a game mechanic in Lords of

Waterdeep, and the robber mechanic in Settlers of Catan. The other players were able to see the similarity as well,

and came to common agreement.

Discussion

In this paper, I have explored how players translate knowledge of a game system in a shared gameplay

experience. It is clear from the study that a shared understanding of the system is essential.(Falcão & Price, 2009)

In each instance where gameplay was stopped to discuss the rules or strategy, it was a result of players

disagreeing about the flow of play, or available options.

For the individual or individuals explaining the rules, the preferred process involved prior knowledge of

the game, either from examining the rule book before the play session, or from a previous experience of playing

the game. The sessions where players spent the most time attempting to learn the system were in situations where
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

none of the players had prior knowledge of the game. In these cases, games were selected based on the theme or

attractiveness of the box. However, when presented with a choice of games, players often selected the game that

one of the players had played previously.

During rules explanation, players would frequently interject with questions(Stahl, 2009) to attempt to

guide the learning. In sessions where no one was familiar with the game, the RE would generally stop explaining

and attempt to answer the question, either from memory, or by exploring a different section of the rule book.

However, players experienced with the game would either answer the question from memory, or refuse to answer

it until they had fully explained the current element. An experienced RE would carefully explain each element of

the game, frequently using examples to explain how a particular game action could be used.

Once players had a basic understanding of the system, they will attempt to begin playing, sometimes

ignoring information until it is necessary. Some games codify this, by leaving out certain actions in early rounds

when they wouldn’t be useful. The game Alchemists, for instance, removes 3 actions from the first round of the

game, to ensure players don’t waste time on more complicated actions that are difficult to explain before they

have a general understanding of the goals.

Seeing these similar strategies employed by different REs over different games shows that board games

lend themselves to certain types of explanations. Some of these have been explored in this paper, but many more

possible studies could be undertaken to explore this behavior further. Some of these strategies have been studied

by board game designers, who then take it into account while designing a rule book. In an interview with Matt

Leacock(Leacock, 2015), designer of collaborative games like Pandemic(Leacock, 2007) and Forbidden Desert

(which was part of the study), he described his process, which involves heavy play testing and iteration. By play

testing games extensively, he is able to see many different types of players interact with his rules, see what issues

might occur during explanation, and what rules are simply unclear. He then uses this information to design the

rule book in such a way that it guides players to a clearer way to explain the game.

The board game rule book has existed in a similar form since the early 1960s when games like

Acquire(Sackson, 1964) were introduced(Woods, 2012). While examining these rule books, it is clear that their
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

structure has not changed greatly in the intervening 50 years. Rule books still contain a game overview, a list of

components, and order of play, and victory conditions. Some contain more examples than others, and modern

rulebooks contain many more graphics and diagrams than their predecessors (Castles of Mad King

Ludwig(Alspach, 2014) for example has a very clear and detailed diagram describing the setup), but it is clear that

rule books have remained constant because they work for their intended audience.

But because they are so constant, board game rule books allow the kind of learning we have seen during

this study. Rule books frequently contain their own language that players must decipher, and the more practice

they have at this skill, the stronger it becomes. Dedicated players can construct knowledge of various game

systems over time, which make learning new game systems easier. This constancy can be leveraged by

researchers to explore the collaboration of learners in both collaborative and competitive environments.

Conclusion

Board games and their players could offer a rich field of study. For example, this paper has not examined

the phenomenon of house rules, and how emergent play can result from players altering their rules. It has also not

examined how the tangibility of board games affects engagement or fun(Xie, Antle, & Motamedi, 2008), or how

players make decisions among various options at the table. Some suggestions of how these processes work exist

in this study, but a focused study on any of these topics would prove more fruitful.

By examining how players create these experiences with just a set of instructions and components, we can

better understand how to describe other types of experiences. This can be especially valuable in design fields,

where we must constantly explain how a system or device will work without having the benefit of a complete and

functional prototype.

Researchers studying collaborative effects could use board games as a window into how players interact

in a collaborative environment. Because there are so many different types of board games, researchers could find

a board game suited to their precise needs, rather than taking time and effort to create their own collaborative

experiment.
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

I believe that board games could be applied to many different fields of study outside of gaming. They are

closed interactive systems that could be compared to many different types of systems. Because players must learn

how to play a board game, they could also be used to study learning strategies and outcomes. Their design could

also be studied to better understand a new field of design, with its own complexities and methods. I have offered a

small number of suggestions, but I hope that other researchers examine board games as a potential tool in their

research activities.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Jean-Francois Gagne and Matt Leacock, both board game industry

professionals who were interviewed during this study, along with Gary Dickson, Gabe Persons, Jordan Hayes,

Jordan Jalles, Zan Morris, Eli Blevis, Ashley Tan, Jordan Beck, and Travis Brown, who helped shape ideas and

edit this paper.

BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

References

Abt, C. C. (1970). Serious Games. New York: Viking Press.

Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS quarterly,
159-174.
Alspach, T. (2014). Castles Of Mad King Ludwig: Bezier Games.
Bauza, A. (2011). Takenoko: Asmodee.
Bergstrom, K. (2010). The Implicit Rules of Board Games - on the particulars of the lusory agreement.
Paper presented at the MindTrek, Tampere, Finland.
Berland, M., Lee, V., & DuMont, M. (2010). Small Groups, Big Mistakes: The Emergence of Faulty
Rules During a Collaborative Board Game. Paper presented at the ICLS.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative Learning and the "Conversation of Mankind". College English,
46(7), 635-652.
Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: An historical and conceptual perspective. Culture, communication, and
cognition: Vygotskian perspectives, (pp. 21-34). London: Cambridge University Press.
Chi, M. T. H., Leeuw, N. D., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves
Understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to Discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259-293.
Costikyan, G. (1994). I Have no words and I must Design. Interactive Fantasy, 2.
Darrow, C. (1933). Monopoly: Parker Brothers.
Daviau, R. (2011). Design Intuitively. In M. Selinker (Ed.), The Kobold Guide to Board Game Design.
Kirkland, WA: Open Design.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? Collaborative Learning: Cognitive
and Computational Approaches, 1-19.
Ernest, J. (2011). The Game Is Not the Rules. In M. Selinker (Ed.), The Kobold Guide To Board Game
Design. Kirkland, WA: Open Design.
Ertl, B., Kopp, B., & Mandl, H. (2005). Effects of an individual's prior knowledge on collaborative
knowledge construction and individual learning outcomes in videoconferencing. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of th 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10
years!, Taipei, Taiwan.
Falcão, T. P., & Price, S. (2009). What Have You Done! The Role of 'interference' in tangible
environments for supporting collaborative learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th international
conference on Computer supported collaborative learning-Volume 1.
Forbeck, M. (2011). Metaphor Vs. Mechanics. In M. Selinker (Ed.), The Kobold Guide to Board Game
Design. Kirkland, WA: Open Design.
Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology
Education, 7(1).
Guzdial, M., & Carroll, K. (2002). Exploring the Lack of Dialogue in Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices.
Jeong, H., & Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Construction of Shared Knowledge During Collaborative Learning.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Computer support for collaborative
learning. International Society of the Learning Science.
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Kang, N. E., & Yoon, W. C. (2005). A Cognitive Modeling of the User’s Exploratory Behavior with Prior
Knowledge.
Kreijns, K., Kirschnew, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in
computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Computers in Human
Behavior, 19, 335-353.
Launius, R., & Wilson, K. (2005). Arkham Horror: Fantasy Flight Games.
Leacock, M. (2007). Pandemic: Z-Man Games.
Leacock, M. (2015, March 27, 2015) Interview with Matt Leacock/Interviewer: A. Hunsucker.
Looney, A. (2011). How I Design A Game. In M. Selinker (Ed.), The Kobold Guide To Board Game
Design. Kirkland, WA: Open Design.
Looney, A., & Looney, K. (1997). Fluxx: Looney Labs.
Lu, X. (2007). The Effects of Awareness of Group Members' Rationale on Collaborative Learning
Activities. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices.
Mahmud, A. A., Mubin, O., Shahid, S., & Martens, J.-B. (2008). Designing and Evaluating the Tabletop
Game Experience for Senior Citizens. Paper presented at the NordiCHI, Lund, Sweden.
Moraveji, N., Lindgren, R., & Pea, R. (2009). Organized Mischief: Comparing Shared and Private
Displays on a Collaborative Learning Task. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
Practices.
Piirainen-Marsh, A., & Tainio, L. (2009). Collaborative Game-play as a Site for Participation and
Situation Learning of a Second Language. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 167-183.
Pulsipher, L. (2011). The Three-Player Problem. In D. D. Greg Costikyan (Ed.), Tabletop Analog Game
Design: ETC Press.
Roger, T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. Creativity and collaborative
learning.
Romero, M., Usart, M., Ott, M., & Earp, J. (2012). Learning Through Playing For Or Against Each
Other? Promoting Collaborative Learning in Digital Game Based Learning. Paper presented at the ECIS 2012.
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by Collaborating: Convergent Conceptual Change. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 2(3), 235-376.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem
Solving. Paper presented at the Computer supported Collaborative Learning.
Rosenberg, U. (2007). Agricola: Lookout Games.
Saab, N., & Joolingen, W. v. (2005). Supporting Collaborative Discovery Learning by Presenting a Tool.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of th 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning:
learning 2005: the next 10 years!
Sackson, S. (1964). Acquire: 3M.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Samuel, A. L. (2000). Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal of
research and development, 44.1.2, 206-226.
Sarmiento, J. W., & Stahl, G. (2008). Extending the Joint Problem Space: Time and Sequence as
Essential Features of Knowledge Building. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th international conference
on International conference for the learning sciences-Volume 2.
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work?
International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 45, 185-213.
Schnieder, P. (1948). A Note On The Exquisite Corpse. Yale Frence Studies, 2, 85-92.
Seyfarth, A. (2002). Puerto Rico: alea.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative Learning in Small Groups: Recent Methods and Effects on Achievement,
Attitudes, and Ethnic Relations. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 241-271.
Stahl, G. (2009). Collaborative Learning through Practices of Group Cognition. Paper presented at the
Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices.
Suits, B. (1990). Grasshopper, Games, Life, and Utopia. Boston: David R. Godine.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and
Instruction, 4(4), 295-312.
Teuber, K. (1995). Settlers Of Catan (Die Siedler Von Catan): KOSMOS.
Thrun, S. (1995). Learning to play the game of chess. Advances in neural information processing systems,
7.
Tidball, J. (2011). Pacing Gameplay. In M. Selinker (Ed.), The Kobold Guide To Board Game Design.
Kirkland, WA: Open Design.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind In Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer Interaction and Learning in Small Groups. International journal of Educational
research, 13(1), 21-39.
Woods, S. (2012). EuroGames: The Design, Culture and Play of Modern European Board Games.
Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.
Wrede, K.-J. (2000). Carcassonne: Hans im Glück Verlags-GmbH.
Xie, L., Antle, A. N., & Motamedi, N. (2008). Are Tangibles More Fun? Comparing Children's
Enjoyment and Engagement Using Physical, Graphical and Tangible User Interfaces. Paper presented at the
Tangible and Embedded Interaction, Bonn, Germany.
Yu, D. (2011). Developing Dominion - What Game Development Is All About. In M. Selinker (Ed.), The
Kobold Guide to Board Game Design. Kirkland, WA: Open Design.
Zhang, T., Liu, J., & Shi, Y. (2012). Enhancing Collaboration in Tabletop Board Game. Paper presented
at the APCHI, Matsue-city, Shimane, Japan.
BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Figures

Figure 1: A game of Takenoko in progress.

BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Figure 2: A game of Lords of Waterdeep in progress

BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Figure 3: The common way for rules to be explained. A single player learns the rules, and then explains them to
the other players.
 BOARD GAMES AS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Figure 4: Visualization of Kang's exploratory behavior as it related to board game knowledge construction

View publication stats