1.
Cognitive Walkthrough
for Learning Through
Game Mechanics
David Farrell & David Moffat
Glasgow Caledonian University

2.
Key Messages
• We should be adapting tools, such as
Cognitive Walkthrough to support serious
game designers.
• It’s hard to make good GBL

3.
Information and animations for junior
and senior pupils across Europe.

4.
Lesson packs for teachers in
junior and senior schools.

5.
a game to teach junior pupils

6.
a game to teach senior pupils

7.
K. Squire & Civ III
D. W. Shaffer & Soda
War on Terror Sweatshop

8.
Cognitive Walkthrough
• A HCI technique, well established in UI
design and evaluation.
• Instead of relying on pure instinct, CW
offers cognitive scaffolding.

9.
Typical CW
• Stage 1:“Defining Inputs”
• describe users
• describe task
• describe system
• list each action required to complete task

10.
Typical CW
• Stage 2:“Walkthrough”
• 1:Will user try to achieve effect?
• 4: If correct action performed, will user notice
progress towards solution?
• 3: Will user associate correct action with the
desired effect?
• 2: Will user notice correct action available?

11.
CW and Serious Games
• UI design is not unique in the requirement
of the designer to ‘imagine’ the user’s brain
• All interaction design requires the designer
to simulate how someone else will think
• This is also true of game design.
• This is important in GBL

12.
Bespoke CWs
• There are many viable GBL pedagogies
• Whatever the underlying theory, there is a
risk translating that theory, through design
into game implementation.
• To be useful, a CW should map to pedagogy

13.
CWLTGM
• Stage 1:“Defining Inputs”
• describe users
• describe task
• describe system
• list each action required to complete task

14.
CWLTGM
• Stage 1:“Defining Inputs”
• describe players
• describe task
• describe system
• list each action required to complete task

15.
CWLTGM
• Stage 1:“Defining Inputs”
• describe players
• describe desired learning outcome
• describe system
• list each action required to complete task

16.
CWLTGM
• Stage 1:“Defining Inputs”
• describe players
• describe desired learning outcomes
• describe how game entities & behaviours
map to subject-domain
• list each action required to complete task

17.
CWLTGM
• Stage 1:“Defining Inputs”
• describe players
• describe desired learning outcomes
• describe how game entities & behaviours
map to subject-domain
• list actions required that are assumed to
support learning

18.
CWLTGM
• Stage 2:“Walkthrough”
• 1:Will user try to achieve effect?
• 2:Will user notice correct action available?
• 3:Will user associate correct action with the
desired effect?
• 4: If correct action performed, will user notice
progress towards solution?

19.
CWLTGM
• Stage 2:“Walkthrough”
• 1:Will user attempt the game task?
• 2:Will user notice correct action available?
• 3:Will user associate correct action with the
desired effect?
• 4: If correct action performed, will user notice
progress towards solution?

20.
CWLTGM
• Stage 2:“Walkthrough”
• 1:Will user attempt the game task?
• 2:Will user understand which in-game actions
might achieve the task goal?
• 3:Will user associate correct action with the
desired effect?
• 4: If correct action performed, will user
notice progress towards solution?

21.
CWLTGM
• Stage 2:“Walkthrough”
• 1:Will user attempt the game task?
• 2:Will user understand which in-game actions
might achieve the task goal?
• 3:Will user associate correct action with the
progress towards game task completion?
• 4: If correct action performed, will user notice
progress towards solution?

22.
CWLTGM
• Stage 2:“Walkthrough”
• 1:Will user attempt the game task?
• 2:Will user understand which in-game actions
might achieve the task goal?
• 3:Will user associate correct action with the
progress towards game task completion?
• 4: If correct action performed, can we expect
learning to take place?

23.
Step 4 of Walkthrough

24.
• In the less successful area of the game, I
identified 9 separate logical links required
Findings
• Of these only 3 appeared safe
• Applying CWLTGM in this capacity offered
reasonable explanation of confusing results

25.
Conclusion
• Gap between best pedagogical theory and ‘day
to day’ game design
• Too much depends on designer instinct and
intuitive simulation of users’ mental model
• CW is a general purpose tool, not restricted to
UI design, that can help structure this process
• We will need bespoke CWs depending
on pedagogy

26.
Future Work
• More analyses of (un)successful games with
this process
• Using CWLTGM during design process

27.
Questions?
• I’d love to hear from anyone interested!
• david.farrell@gcu.ac.uk