Mike Reese, Joan Freedman, and Peter Fröhlich (Johns Hopkins University)
Abstract
A faculty-staff course development team at Johns Hopkins University designed an interdisciplinary and inter-institutional gaming course taught by faculty, game industry professionals, computer scientists, and multimedia developers from throughout the Baltimore, MD region. Students gained a broad knowledge of gaming along with practical development skills through a regular lecture-discussion course coordinated with a weekly lab. The interdisciplinary student teams were mentored by industry professionals and worked throughout the semester to produce games. The course development team faced a variety of challenges stemming from the inter-institutional, inter-departmental collaboration.
Introduction
In 2008, video games represented a market of $11.7 billion with about 68% of U.S. households reporting gaming activity (Entertainment Software Association, 2009) 1. Video games represent a maturing field and are prevalent enough to warrant academic attention from a wide variety of disciplines. Game development courses also present an opportunity to teach students technical skills in a challenging, authentic learning environment.
This paper is primarily a case study of how one gaming course was designed and implemented, but the authors hope they can assist others who plan to develop similar courses in the future by sharing several best practices and lessons learned. We begin by describing the development and facilitation of an introductory gaming course first taught at Johns Hopkins in the Spring 2009 semester. The paper concludes with a summary of the evaluation data and suggested questions you may want to explore if you embark on a similar project.
-
Catalog Description
A broad survey course in video game design (as opposed to mathematical game theory), covering artistic, technical, as well as sociological aspects of video games. Students will learn about the history of video games, archetypal game styles, computer graphics and programming, user interface and interaction design, graphical design, spatial and object design, character animation, basic game physics, plot and character development, as well as psychological and sociological impact of games. Students will design and implement an experimental video game in interdisciplinary teams of 3-4 students as part of a semester-long project.
Motivating Forces
Several driving forces led to the creation of this course. First, industry and accreditation agencies are increasingly encouraging universities to offer students interdisciplinary, team-based learning opportunities. The jobs of the future do not simply align with the departmental structure of our colleges and universities (Frank and Gabler, 2006)2. In addition, students will not likely work in disciplinary silos, but will collaborate with colleagues of diverse professional backgrounds. Universities have an obligation to prepare their students for this collaborative work environment before they graduate.
Second, undergraduate enrollments in computer science soared through the 1990s before reaching their peak seven years ago, however, recently those enrollments retreated almost 50% at some institutions (Zweben, 2008)3. The computer science department at Johns Hopkins experienced a similar trend and began actively exploring courses and programs that would excite students about the field.
Third, students, almost ubiquitously, hold an interest in gaming. Students began requesting a gaming course at Johns Hopkins years ago with the frequency increasing annually. Several JHU alumni either work for or have started their own successful gaming companies, and are interested in supporting these types of course offerings so they can recruit qualified students. In addition, Johns Hopkins is located 15 miles south of one of the nation’s highest concentration of gaming companies in the United States. Hunt Valley, MD houses the headquarters of several gaming companies, including Firaxis Games, Breakaway Games, Day One Studios, and Big Huge Games. Executives from these companies, also hungry for talented programmers, artists, and writers, contacted JHU Computer Science faculty about the possibility of offering a course or even a curriculum in gaming.
Together this confluence of forces led to the first game development course offered at Johns Hopkins in the Spring 2009 semester. The Computer Science department and Whiting School of Engineering are now exploring whether or not to expand the program into a concentration.
Course Design
The course design began with the final assessment: student teams would develop a working video game in a course-long project. All other elements of the course evolved from the central role of the students’ game development project. Students were exposed to introductory gaming topics (e.g., gaming genres, gaming history) in a standard lecture course. The instructor of record and primary lecturer, Dr. Peter Fröhlich, invited guests from industry and other universities to lecture and mentor students teams as they worked on their game project. An associated lab section offered by the Digital Media Center (DMC) – the campus student multimedia lab –focused on the development of design and implementation skills (e.g., 3-D modeling, graphic design).
The primary project goals of the course design were the following:
- Design the scope and requirements of the course final project.
- Design the learning objectives and conceptual content of an introductory video game course.
- Identify, recruit, and coordinate guest lecturers from the Krieger School of Arts & Sciences, Whiting School of Engineering, Maryland College Institute of Art, and the local gaming industry.
- Identify and coordinate campus hardware and software resources to ensure the student game development experience is supported by appropriate technology resources.
- Develop an assessment strategy to evaluate the success of the course learning objectives.
The team also worked with the Johns Hopkins Sheridan Libraries to establish a modest gaming collection. The professor required students to play and review games as part of their course assignments. While many students owned games, the instructor felt it was important for them to have the opportunity to play games from different genres and systems. The librarian for computer science joined the development team and led the game collection development effort. She also helped the team navigate the difficult process of establishing new library borrowing privileges and policies for game media because the Libraries’ policies for traditional audio-visual materials (e.g., DVDs, VHS tapes, CDs) did not directly apply to video games. The library did not purchase consoles for students to play the games because the DMC already owned consoles that students could borrow. In the spirit of collaboration, the librarian successfully pushed to have the Libraries’ game collection managed through the DMC’s equipment reservation office. Students in the gaming course spent most of their time in the DMC — the location of the lab section and the site where most student teams met to develop their games. Checking out games and consoles through the DMC exemplifies the Libraries’ commitment to providing convenient, common-sense service. Still, it would not have happened without the librarian advocating for this agreement.
Figure 1 - Gaming Lab (Photo Credit: HIPS, Will Kirk)
In addition to teaching the lab section of the course, DMC staff developed two connected spaces to support game design, prototyping, testing, and research (aka fun): the Gaming Lab and Gaming Lounge. The JHU Gaming Lab is a fully equipped development and testing lab created to support course-related and independent game development and exploration by students. The lab contains high-end workstations, including NVIDIA graphics cards and an array of cutting-edge development software, as well as a large-format Samsung screen and 5.1 surround-sound system for testing and game play. Resources for the JHU Gaming Lab and other gaming-related initiatives were gathered from existing equipment stock at the Digital Media Center and Department of Computer Science, personal donations by staff, software purchased by the Milton S. Eisenhower Library, a grant from the Smart Family Foundation managed by the Center for Educational Resources, an in-kind donation from NVIDIA Corporation, and a partnership with Valve Incorporated.
Figure 2 - Gaming Lounge (Photo Credit: HIPS, Will Kirk)
The Gaming Lounge is a student-friendly space that features comfortable furniture attractively arranged around a series of gaming stations. Game stations include: a flat-panel display with parabolic speakers for directed sound that can accommodate a number of different game consoles; a classic arcade-style gaming table; and a beta-test kiosk that can be used for console play or to display student-developed games. In response to increased interest in gaming among students, the DMC also sponsors a number of game-related events. Networked gaming nights are held four times per year, during which all 18 of the DMC’s workstations are converted to a cyber-café for networked multiplayer gaming.
Video Game Lab, Lounge, and Design Course from Digital Media Center on Vimeo.
Course Elements
Course Project
The game design project provided the core element of the course around which the other elements were designed. In short, student teams needed to develop a working game by the end of the semester. The faculty and staff course developers debated whether to provide students with a design specification for the game or to give them free rein. Some argued that open criteria would encourage students to be creative, whereas supporters of design specifications felt students new to game development would benefit from starting within a framework. An industry partner interviewed during the needs analysis phase suggested from her teaching experience that students can be more creative when operating in a restricted design environment because they would have an existing scaffold on which to build. This was one of the most intensely debated issues of the course and in the end the course developers decided to specify very few criteria thinking students hailing from different disciplines would want more freedom to choose their development path and game genre. Those criteria were as follows.
Your game must:
- be fun
- be a game
- have progression (e.g., levels, stages)
- include graphics
- include sound
- include a manual
Mentoring
To make up for the lack of specification, the primary instructor assigned each student team a mentor from a regional gaming company. In addition to providing advice, the goal of the mentorship was to develop a relationship between students/teams and the gaming company in the hopes of leading to internships and job offers. The teams met with their mentor once a week to review their recent work, ask for design advice, and set deadlines for the coming weeks. While meeting weekly helped to keep students on task, the industry relationships also produced unexpected benefits. One mentor shared an audio library with a team; another recruited a colleague to provide advice on graphic design. The mentor structure provided to be one of the most beneficial aspects of the course.
Student Teams
To ensure a balance in skill sets, the instructor restricted course enrollment by permission-only. Each student applied to the course by completing a brief survey about why they wanted to take the course and what skills they could contribute to the team. The lecture and lab instructors then assigned students to teams based on their skill sets and interest in gaming genres. Students were recruited from the Maryland Institute College of Art and the Johns Hopkins Peabody Conservatory, the latter located on a different campus than the engineering undergraduate students. Demand exceeded course seats so the instructor included a four-person waitlist in case a student assigned to a team dropped out in the initial weeks of the semester.
Lecture Format
Students met in lecture three days a week for 50 minutes (M-W-F class). The lecture acted as a general survey of gaming as a form of entertainment with unique programming methods. Topics included a brief history of gaming, intellectual property issues, gaming and business, introductory programming, and computer graphics principles. The instructor wanted to cover the latter topics to expose students to the various technical sides of game development. The instructor strongly believed students needed cross-training on the technical skills not associated with their role on the team. For example, designers would need a basic understanding of how programmers write code that manipulates graphics (and programmers would need supplemental training on graphic design). While students were not expected to master the topics, they would have a basic appreciation of what is involved in writing code and designing graphics.
While the primary faculty member, Peter Fröhlich, facilitated many of the lectures, the diversity of topics covered required that he also rely on guest lecturers. Gaming legend Ken Rolston lectured on role playing design. Katie Hirsch, a designer from Firaxis Games and instructor from the University of Maryland Baltimore County, discussed user interface design. Tim Train, Chief Operating Officer of Big Huge Games talked about how to prepare for a career in gaming. Faculty from Johns Hopkins and other universities lectured on various elements of game design.
Student teams also demonstrated their project progress during the lecture section. The professor scheduled three demos throughout the semester to coincide with the teams’ Alpha, Beta, and Gold release. This was an excellent opportunity for students to receive feedback and learn development tricks from their peers.
Lab Format
The students participated in a co-requisite lab section with the goal of exposing programmers to media making techniques, showing artists to new tools, and introducing all students to the new workspace and support staff. These goals were very challenging to implement due to wide ranging skill sets, interest levels, and institutional scheduling. Each team was comprised of two programmers and two “creative types” (e.g., artist, graphic designer, musician, composer, writer). The teams were assigned one of two lab sessions that met once a week for 75 minutes.
Each lab was designed to focus on a different technology that could be integrated into the team designed and created games. Topics included work flow planning, character development, animation, 3D modeling, sound effects, titles and transitions, and even package and manual design. Each session included an introduction to the topic through an example, a short demo of a software tool used to deconstruct the example, and a hands-on opportunity to manipulate project files and complete a self-paced tutorial.
The lab syllabus attempted to sequence the topics with the lecture syllabus, student game development process, as well as the pedagogical sequence of building and reinforcing skills. Two lab sessions that did not follow this format were the second session on Game Rules and the final lab on writing product documentation and packaging design.
Figure 3 - Game Rules Lab Session
Many students commented that the Game Rules session was their favorite because it was fun and relevant to every member of the project team. Ironically, it was the only technology-free session. During this lab session, each team was given a different bag of small objects such as cards, dice, timer, clay, action figures, etc. Then each team was given a different game genre, such as one-on-one, play against self, team-on-team, and cooperative/non-competitive. They had 20 minutes to design a fun game within the genre using only the props provided. They also had to write the game objective and rules so that anyone could understand and play as directed. Teams swapped games and had 20 minutes to play and write critiques of the game and instructions. Finally teams discussed each other’s games and brainstormed improvements. Many groups used this same process to prototype and gather feedback for their video games throughout the semester.
Figure 4 - Packaging Lab Session
The final lab session focused on creating game documentation and product packaging. After a short presentation/discussion about audience, marketing, and media outlets, each group was given an assortment of fold-up box and brochure templates. They used design software to manipulate graphics from their video game into documentation, packaging, and advertising materials.
Student Assessments
Assessments and grading were done in several ways, by the faculty, teaching assistants, lab staff, and mentors, although the final grade was determined by the lead instructor. Because many students are wary of their grades being dependent on the work of a team, the instructor offered several opportunities for individual evaluation and extra points. Students used blogs to introduce themselves to their team and report on their progress. A short writing assignment/game review provided opportunities for individual students to get to know each other by playing several games, learning about different genres and development platforms, and writing and sharing their opinions of the games they played. At the end of the course, each student was asked to evaluate their teammates’ contributions to the final project as well as highlight their own major contributions.
As a group, each team was expected to demo their game three times, in Alpha, Beta, and Gold releases. These five-minute classroom presentations enabled everyone to follow the teams’ progress (although, sometimes a team’s biggest challenge was to successfully hook up their game platform to the projector and sound system before their 5 minutes elapsed). Teams were also invited to make their prototypes and final games available for play at two public events: the Digital Media Center’s Game Night and end-of-year open house. Many of the team took advantage of this opportunity to get feedback from less sophisticated gamers.
Industry mentors sent weekly email reports to the instructors after their team meetings by answering the following five questions:
- Did everybody show up? Were they on time?
- Did everybody seem involved?
- Did they seem prepared with prototype, artwork, working code sounds, music, etc?
- Did they make a decent amount of progress since last week? What are their major stumbling blocks?
- Do they have problems with a specific area/technology that we need to help them with?
Evaluations
The course development team committed themselves to a rigorous formative assessment process to improve the course both as it ran and for future semesters. Assessment activities included collecting student feedback through interviews, focus groups, and anonymous online surveys.
Overall, students liked the concept of the course. The final project was regularly communicated as their favorite aspect of the course because it allowed them to work in teams and to create a product. One student commented, “Making a game was cool!” Students said they learned to appreciate the diversity of talents of their teammates. During a focus group a computer science major said, “Artists contributed a lot. They are amazing!” while an artist commented, “What computer scientists do is humbling.” In fact, several students felt they learned more game development skills from each other than from lecture and lab.
Students also enjoyed the exposure to industry experts as mentors and guest speakers. Several teams remarked how valuable their mentor’s advice had been. An unplanned but important learning experience arose when one of the companies that supplied mentors underwent a major downsizing in which the company laid off 1/3 of its staff. This unfortunate event became a learning opportunity as students saw firsthand the effects of the Great Recession. Many talked directly with their mentors about the experience. While the experience did not deter students from wanting to work in the gaming industry, they recognized the volatility of working in the entertainment sector.
In the online survey, a majority of students said they would recommend the course to a friend. However, students expressed frustration with the design of the course and project requirements that the instructor will address in future implementations. First, students wanted more frequent project deadlines. The three Alpha, Beta, and Gold deadlines were not enough. They wanted weekly assignments that would assist them in making progress towards larger milestones. Second, students wanted more detailed grading policies and stricter game design specifications. This was useful feedback because the course development team debated the virtue of assigning students a detailed design specification as opposed to general criteria to be met. For an introductory course, students felt narrow design parameters would enable them to focus on the basic skills of game development. Students felt creative opportunities for designing their own game could be facilitated through advanced game design courses (e.g., Capstone Design course). Third, students wanted more opportunities to demo their projects during class. They appreciated feedback from peers and wanted more of it to assist them in refining their game design and play. Students suggested they review each others’ games every 2-3 weeks and link these demos to submission deadlines. Students regularly took advantage of the gaming library and several asked for more game review homework opportunities to encourage them to play new games including modern games and possibly table top games.
Overall, students felt the syllabus included too many topics, many of which did not apply to their team’s game development efforts or did not occur in time to meet their needs (e.g., audio editing taught after Alpha release deadlines). The students also recommended reorganizing the course structure so the course emphasized labs more than lectures. Students felt the labs were too short and they did not get enough time to apply the concepts under the instruction of the lab teacher. Student teams comprised of members from different campuses and schools also wanted more open time in labs to collaborate because they experienced difficulty scheduling common times to meet. Students from the Maryland Institute College of Art have 5-hour studio courses where Johns Hopkins students typically enroll in 50- or 90-minute classes. Students, again, suggested the instructor assign a pre-determined development platform to make lectures and labs more applicable to all teams.
Another suggestion was to offer two tracks, one on gaming programming and the other on artistic development for gaming. Students would enroll in the course track most aligned with their expertise (programming vs. creative arts) and then meet during labs to work together on projects. Students also suggested establishing open, self-paced labs in which they would receive credits for demonstrating competencies they master. This would enable them to learn the specific skills needed for their project.
Though students liked interdisciplinary teams, some groups reported conflicts and difficulty communicating ideas across disciplinary boundaries. They requested more instruction on managing team dynamics and project management. Faculty from other departments who teach courses with team projects offered to share materials and assignments used to prepare students for working in teams.
Conclusion
Our hope in sharing this case study is that others can benefit from the best practices identified and lessons learned by one course development team implementing a gaming course at a particular university. Shortly after the course ended, the course development team hosted several conversations with faculty from different disciplines (e.g., cognitive science, music composition) and regional colleges to explore opportunities to expand gaming course offerings at Johns Hopkins and in the region. Stemming from these meetings, the course development team noted a lot of interest in partnering; new and existing course offerings are expected in the future. Two courses are schedule for the 2009-10 academic year. The Introductory Course will be offered again for a new cohort in Spring 2010. Students from the Spring 2009 course will have the opportunity to resurrect project teams and continue working on their games in an advanced, independent study course.
As with any new collaboration, there were many questions that needed to be asked and difficult conversations that were carefully facilitated. Throughout the course development and implementation, the course development team faced a variety of issues that were resolved and learned from. Here are some key questions you may want to ask if you embark on a similar project. Several of these were raised and/or discussed by attendees at the NMC Summer conference session.
- Who are the stakeholders and what are the conditions of their participation?
Does a single department or institution need to have “ownership” of the course for the flow of tuition dollars? Does another department need to fund additional staff hours to support this course? What are the inter-institutional registration issues? Are there scheduling conflicts due to differences in term starts, holiday schedules, and teaching period lengths? - Which is more important, the process or the product?
Do students have several semesters in which to learn all aspects of video game design or does there need to be a tangible result quickly? Will this be the only course available or can multiple departments and majors be included in developing a concentration, minor, or major? Are students focused on gaining job skills and developing a gaming portfolio or is an academic exploration of the field more in keeping with institutional priorities? - What are the best ways to integrate industry mentors and how can this be achieved without proximity?
Are your students at a sufficient level that they can make use of mentors or are staff and graduate students adequate? What is the incentive and pay off for the industry representative and is that in keeping with your goals? Are there alumni who can fill this role? Can professional associates available through online communications be available? - What is the balance of providing hands-on experience versus theoretical background? How can lecture and lab sessions be used most effectively?
Do all students need the same content at the same level? What aspects of instruction are important skills to learn regardless of their application in the final product? How can topics be taught without the expertise availability on your campus? How important is it for the lectures and labs to be in sync and for the theoretical and practical interwoven? - How much time is needed to achieve your educational objectives?
How many credit hours will the students devote to this course (lecture/lab combo)? Is the amount of time needed to complete the team project commensurate with the credits received? Should lab time be devoted to working on the project in teams? - What are the best ways to work with teams?
Should you group students with advanced skills with similar students to encourage them to challenge each other or with novice students to provide new teaching opportunities? What are the benefits of allowing teams to self-select based on project interest rather than skills? How much team training do you provide to foster good working relationships?
Author Bios
Mike Reese and Joan Freedman
Mike Reese is the Assistant Director at the JHU Center for Educational Resources (CER). In this role, he acts as a project manager overseeing projects in which the CER partners with faculty to explore innovative uses of technology in support of teaching. He is also a doctoral student in sociology with a research focus on how ideas and innovations spread through school systems. He holds a B.S. in electrical engineering from Virginia Tech and an M.Ed. in instructional technology from the University of Virginia.
Joan Freedman has been involved with art and technology in various ways for the last 20 years. Throughout the late 80s, early 90’s she worked with multimedia pioneers in the San Francisco Bay Area creating interactive museum exhibits, educational software, and games. Currently Ms. Freedman is the Director of the Johns Hopkins University Digital Media Center, collaborating with students and faculty in many departments such as Mechanical Engineering, Computer Science, Art as Applied to Medicine, History, Entrepreneurship & Management, Film and Media, and Writing Seminars. She holds a BFA in Design and Technology, and an M.S. in Instructional Technology.
Peter Fröhlich is a senior lecturer for the Department of Computer Science in the Whiting School of Engineering at The Johns Hopkins University. His interests include programming languages, software engineering, and systems software (e.g., compilers, networking, operating systems). He is the founder and director of the Johns Hopkins Gaming Lab. He holds an undergraduate degree in Computer Science and Mathematics from the Munich University of Applied Sciences and a Ph.D. in computer science from University of California, Irvine.
No Comments so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.