GroundsKeeper: A Qualitative Study of Applied Game-based Interactives in Special Education Programs

The purpose of this study is to examine the use of, and reaction to, one particular software application(GroundsKeeper) delivered on unique platform - Sifteo cubes (www.sifteo.com). The hypothesis is that the use of these devices will increase engagement, motivation, interest, and have perceived benefits to users with unique attention-limiting cognitive disabilities. How does the observation of and user feedback from gameplay reveal areas of improvement for the game, strengths, and perceptions of value among the players and adults?

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Autism Spectrum Disorder; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; Asperger's Disorder; Pervasive Developmental Disorder
• Intervention / Treatment: Device: Groundskeeper

Detailed Description

Primarily the investigators seek to observe and interview participants over a three-week period of time to assess their ongoing interest and the perceived effects of regular play segments each day (10-20 minutes each). Data will be collected in pre/post interviews, teacher journals, and observation of pre/post play sessions.

These new hands-on digitized cubes are motion sensitive blocks that are capable of interactively reacting to each other and motion applied to them. The game GroundKeeper makes use of these cubes to use auditory and visual stimuli to provide distractors during play apart from the goal of the game. The investigators expect that play will encourage attention in players and are interested to see what players and their teachers/parents perceive the effects to be.

The investigator's goal is not to measure actual attention rates and times of the students, but the subjective observations of players' engagement with the devices, motivation to play the game, interest initially and over time, and perceived effect of the game on attention. This type study is commonly known as 'play-testing' a software product with the target audience; a process refined as "design-based research" in academia (Laurel, 2003) and used for assessing the quality of digital designs for learning (Barab & Squire, 2004) and using data to improve them. This study will be a qualitative counter-balance to the quantitative work being done separately by the University of Minnesota (Under Dr. Srivastava), using clinical and computer based diagnostics and data mining respectively on the same product.

Digital tools are facilitating both traditional and '21st century skills' via new information and communication technologies for knowledge work, thinking, learning, and leading digital lifestyles (p. 23) (Trilling & Fadel, 2009). Further there is growing evidence these skills, along with traditional literacies are being learned by using digital applications (Gee, 2007; Squire & Barab, 2004; Steinkuehler & Duncan, 2008). Early evidence that digital tools can 'amplify' learning activity shows potential for digital technology to beneficial even if 'played' or used 'in the wild' (Squire & Dikkers, 2012). This study seeks to further explore learning attributes of a digitally mediated learning experience designed for a particular learning goal.

Additionally, current diagnostic aids, used in treating attention capacity for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism, are currently expensive, time intensive, and provide little information about accessory movements in response to a stimulus. One in ten children, ages 5 to 17, has been diagnosed with ADHD; and the number of kids with autism has increased 78% in the last ten years http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/ health/autism/index.html). This study will seek to assess the accessibility and usability of software that seeks to help shape attention strategies through play and 'fun' learning for both ADHD and Autistic children that struggle with attention. If effective this could be a valuable and affordable option for educational institutions to serve these learners.

This study seeks to aid CogCubed in improved design for their game that will improve its' ability to engage, motivate, and retain player interest over time.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 21
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• United States
  • Ohio
    • Athens, Ohio, United States, 45701
      • Ohio University

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 5 years to 12 years (CHILD)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
• Autism Spectrum Disorder
• Pervasive Developmental Disorder
• Asperger's Disorder
• Cognitive Disabilities

Exclusion Criteria:

• Subject does not have cognitive disabilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Autism Spectrum Disorders

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: TREATMENT
• Allocation: NA
• Interventional Model: SINGLE_GROUP
• Masking: NONE

Number of Arms

1

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Intervention / Treatment

Experimental: Play Groundskeeper; This study will employ design-based research models (Laurel, 2003) to the executive-functioning training game GroundsKeeper by CogCubed; we will assess the quality of digital designs for learning (Barab & Squire, 2004) using established qualitative data collection to analyze game play and player reaction over a three week period of time. We will assess the participants for their ability to stay engaged in play by observing their engagement in the game, time played, frequency of play, and the ability to complete a session over the course of three weeks while in school.

Device: Groundskeeper; Groundskeeper is a product developed for helping players develop skills to increase focus and attention. The game is played on small Sifteo Cubes that have sensors that react to you and each other. There are new games that might help children with ADHD and Autism learn to better focus and keep attention on a task.; Other Names: Executive Function Training Game

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Number of Participants With an Increase/Improvement in Focusing	Researchers will observe and record data during the first play session. Over the three weeks, teachers/support staff will be asked to observe players each day and record their observations as needed in a journal. These observations will measure their improvement in their ability to focus by assessing their engagement, time played, frequency of play, ability to complete a session and ability to start and finish a session. At the end of three weeks, researchers will attend the final play session and record observations in writing.	3 weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Number of Participants Identified as Attentive, Interested and Motivated Via Pre Interview	Researchers will conduct interviews with players and collect all notes/journals recorded. Specific questions will be asked about their perception of their attention, interest and motivation to play the game. Example of questions included if they enjoyed playing the game, if they wanted to play the game and if they have trouble focusing during the game. Was it too long? Themes of the answers will be identified by researchers as a qualitative measure of interest.	Day 1

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Number of Participants by Teachers Identified as Attentive, Interested and Motivated Via Pre Interview	Researchers will conduct interviews with teachers and collect all notes/journals recorded. Specific questions will be asked about their perception of their attention, interest and motivation to play the game. Example of questions included if they enjoyed playing the game, if they wanted to play the game and if they have trouble focusing during the game. Was it too long? Themes of the answers will be identified by researchers as a qualitative measure of interest.	Day 1
Number of Participants Identified as Interested and Improved Quality of Life in Classroom Via Post Test Interview	After playing game for three weeks, researchers will interview participants about their interest in the game and changes in quality of life (no forms).	Day 21
Number of Participants Identified by Teachers as Attentive, Interested and Motivated Following Testing Via Post Test Interview	Researchers will ask teachers for qualitative feedback once participants have completed game play about interest in using the game and any improvements to be made. Did they think the game was interactive. Would they use the game again? Do they think the students were able to maintain their interest? Number of Participants identified as attentive, interested and motivated via pre interview	Day 21

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: CogCubed, Corp
• Collaborators: Ohio University
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Seann Dikkers, PhD, Ohio University

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Trilling, Bernie, & Fadel, Charles. (2009). 21 Century Skills: Learning for Life in our Times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Steinkuehler, C., & Duncan, S. (2008). Scientific Habits of Mind in Virtual Worlds. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 530-543. doi: Doi 10.1007/S10956-008-9120-8
• Squire, K., & Dikkers, S. (2012). Amplifications of learning: Use of mobile media devices among youth. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, OnlineFirst. http://con.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/02/15/1354856511429646 doi:10.1177/1354856511429646.
• Squire, K., & Barab, S. (2004). Replaying history: Engaging urban undeserved students in learning world history. Paper presented at the 6th international conference on Learning sciences, Los Angeles, CA.
• Gee, J. P. (2007). What Video Games have to Teach us about Learning and Literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan
• Barab, S. and K. Squire (2004).
• Laurel, B., Ed. (2003). Design Research: Methods and Perspectives. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start: January 1, 2013
• Primary Completion (Actual): May 1, 2013
• Study Completion (Actual): May 1, 2013

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: March 6, 2013
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: March 7, 2013
• First Posted (Estimate): March 11, 2013

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): October 16, 2019
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: October 14, 2019
• Last Verified: October 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Mental Disorders; Pathologic Processes; Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders; Neurodevelopmental Disorders; Child Development Disorders, Pervasive; Disease; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Developmental Disabilities; Asperger Syndrome
• Other Study ID Numbers: 12X226 (Other Identifier: Ohio University IRB)