19 Gamifying Sustainable Design to Enhance Environmental …
299
19.4 Results and Discussion
Nine Eco-Game projects were designed and playtested (Figs. 19.4, 19.5, 19.6). The
game content included various topics, such as climate change, waste sorting, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, LCA, upcycling, and cleaner production (Table 19.1).
Four out of nine games focused on waste identification and sorting, which tended to
be the most thought-provoking issue. SusSeat, which was designed in 2017 presented
its game content by combining knowledge of LCA and material selection as design
guidance for designers. This game used Eco-indicator 99 database, brand analysis,
as well as furniture design and manufacturing techniques as pathway of the game.
Integro and Circular Factory, which are strategic planning games, showed the
effectiveness of integrating gamification to cover all three principles of sustainable
design within game contents. The other games could tackle mostly two of the principles. Designed in 2016, Integro presented the levels of GHG emissions from different
sectors and each player, as a world leader, was tasked to manage and set the policy to
reduce emissions. Circular Factory was designed in 2018 and presented the role of
plastic manufacturers in managing their raw material procurement, production line,
and resource recovery.
Referring to the checklist results, considerable differences were observed among
the four orders of gamification achieved by the projects (Table 19.1). Two groups
of students can achieve the third order of gamification, (i.e. interactive gamification), by interconnecting with real-life benefits on strategic planning and including
collaboration with other players during playing games. This stage encourages social
interactions and stimulates knowledge creation. Most of the games can accomplish
the second order of gamification, (i.e. basic gamification), by applying game elements
and mechanics to incentivize and reward simple real-world behaviors, such as helping
how to sort waste in everyday life, what materials can be recycled, and how to select
materials for eco-product design. Only two games focused mainly on entertaining
players and provided general knowledge about climate change. The students can
apply game-like mechanics to attract players’ attention, as well as engage and enjoy
the game for a brief period. However, none of them can elevate their games toward
systemic gamification yet.
The measures of central tendency during consecutive years from 2016 to 2018
were provided in Tables 19.2, 19.3, and 19.4, respectively. The results showed that the
students gained additional knowledge after playing only five of the games, namely,
Save the Polar!, Drop ‘n’ Go, Integro, Circular Factory, and Magic Village. The short
reflective essays in Table 19.5 present various factors, including complexity of rules,
inadequate prototype testing in phase 3, and ignorance of knowledge due to physical actions and focusing on tasks, considering the poor response from gaining new
knowledge. This issue was similarly reported by Oberprieler et al. (2017), whereby
the players only focused on achievement instead of transformation of learning.
Landers et al. (2018) stated that “Gamified applications may not even be intended
to be fun.” However, questionnaire results showed that having fun is correlated
with students’ satisfaction toward learning experiences. Student’s reflective essays
299
19.4 Results and Discussion
Nine Eco-Game projects were designed and playtested (Figs. 19.4, 19.5, 19.6). The
game content included various topics, such as climate change, waste sorting, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, LCA, upcycling, and cleaner production (Table 19.1).
Four out of nine games focused on waste identification and sorting, which tended to
be the most thought-provoking issue. SusSeat, which was designed in 2017 presented
its game content by combining knowledge of LCA and material selection as design
guidance for designers. This game used Eco-indicator 99 database, brand analysis,
as well as furniture design and manufacturing techniques as pathway of the game.
Integro and Circular Factory, which are strategic planning games, showed the
effectiveness of integrating gamification to cover all three principles of sustainable
design within game contents. The other games could tackle mostly two of the principles. Designed in 2016, Integro presented the levels of GHG emissions from different
sectors and each player, as a world leader, was tasked to manage and set the policy to
reduce emissions. Circular Factory was designed in 2018 and presented the role of
plastic manufacturers in managing their raw material procurement, production line,
and resource recovery.
Referring to the checklist results, considerable differences were observed among
the four orders of gamification achieved by the projects (Table 19.1). Two groups
of students can achieve the third order of gamification, (i.e. interactive gamification), by interconnecting with real-life benefits on strategic planning and including
collaboration with other players during playing games. This stage encourages social
interactions and stimulates knowledge creation. Most of the games can accomplish
the second order of gamification, (i.e. basic gamification), by applying game elements
and mechanics to incentivize and reward simple real-world behaviors, such as helping
how to sort waste in everyday life, what materials can be recycled, and how to select
materials for eco-product design. Only two games focused mainly on entertaining
players and provided general knowledge about climate change. The students can
apply game-like mechanics to attract players’ attention, as well as engage and enjoy
the game for a brief period. However, none of them can elevate their games toward
systemic gamification yet.
The measures of central tendency during consecutive years from 2016 to 2018
were provided in Tables 19.2, 19.3, and 19.4, respectively. The results showed that the
students gained additional knowledge after playing only five of the games, namely,
Save the Polar!, Drop ‘n’ Go, Integro, Circular Factory, and Magic Village. The short
reflective essays in Table 19.5 present various factors, including complexity of rules,
inadequate prototype testing in phase 3, and ignorance of knowledge due to physical actions and focusing on tasks, considering the poor response from gaining new
knowledge. This issue was similarly reported by Oberprieler et al. (2017), whereby
the players only focused on achievement instead of transformation of learning.
Landers et al. (2018) stated that “Gamified applications may not even be intended
to be fun.” However, questionnaire results showed that having fun is correlated
with students’ satisfaction toward learning experiences. Student’s reflective essays