Introduction to Digital Game-

Based Learning
Game Design Assignment: Pincer Primer
Neil Davison

Semester 2, 2017-2018
Introduction
In this assignment I present a series of
game-informed tasks based around the
manipulation of a robotic arm. Using
written narrative and image-based
instructions students complete
increasingly difficult tasks using a USB
game controller to make a robotic arm
move in a specified area. I hope to
show that the learning and outcomes
improve by incorporating game
characteristics and principles into the
activity. Figure 1. Mover4 robot arm, the model used in the activity (cpr-
robots.com, 2018a)

The Training
Setting
Context
The Trades department of the Campus has two new robotic arms for training
purposes. To assist the instructors incorporate them into their courses, it is
important to provide guided activities with genuine learning outcomes that align
with nationwide apprenticeship content (Taylor, 2018).

The activity presumes existing understanding of 2-dimensional co-ordinates and 3-

dimensional volumes in the pre-requisite mathematics courses (Government of BC,
2018; cnc.bc.ca, 2018; Taylor, 2018).

Outcomes
The students should learn how to control the arm and understand 3-dimensional co-
ordinates in relation to the arm’s range of motion. Those with limited skill in
controlling the arm are provided the opportunity to contribute to their team
collecting and collating data to help with some of the more complex movements. The
instructor can recommend that the teams decide on who will fill or alternate roles
after all students have attempted the first 3 tasks.

Students
Students in the Industrial Mechanic, Millwright, or Power Engineering programs are
the groups most likely to benefit from the training due to potential exposure to
similar equipment in their workplace. The apprentices range in age from 19 to 45.
The cohort size is set at a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 16 (Baker, 2018).

2
Students could be either apprentices or foundation level. Apprentices are
experienced workers, leveling up in their trade, and would have several years of
practice in their industry. They will know about safe work practices and daily
activities in industry. Foundation level students, if training straight from secondary
education, would be classed as young or new workers (WorkSafe BC, 2018).

I suggest the experienced cohorts be classified as affinity groups, due to their

program and what they will be experiencing. For these apprentices, their dedication
to their trade, incorporating a wealth of knowledge from their sectors, will have a
“common endeavour” (Gee, 2007, p.206) to level up in their trade. As Gee (2001,
p.105) states, they “share… allegiance to, access to, and participation in specific
practices”, being enrolled in the same trade cohort, having the “requisite
experiences”.

Foundation level students come to the course with the notion of being a
tradesperson after 22 weeks, to form an identity by committing to learning in a new
domain, wanting to be part of that affinity group (Gee, 2007, p.54), to call
themselves a Millwright.

Equipment
There are 2 table-top robotic arms with
generic game controllers and programmable
software that can make the robotic arm move
around and grab items with a gripper/pincer
(CPR-robots.com, 2018b).

Robotics and automation are commonplace

in modern manufacturing arenas and the
arms are intended to give students the
opportunity to learn how these work, to be
familiar with their operation,
aiding repair diagnoses (Taylor, 2018). Figure 2 Screenshot from the software showing x,
y, and z motion arrows (cpr-robots.com, 2018b)

Pincer Primer
The Backstory
The Foreman wants a new robotic arm’s range of movement tested and then
requires co-ordinates for a sequence of moves. They want the information by the
end of the day as the robot is to begin weight testing tomorrow.

3
Robotic Motion Testing (RMT)
As a member of a team, your task is to initialize the arm and run the assigned
movement tests. You will be required to record the co-ordinates of the tests and
potentially use co-ordinates to input into the software to run tasks automatically.

The arm will be working in a restricted sized area during the tests. Penalties are
incurred if there is damage to the arm – i.e. hits the sides or the table. When
students do not have access to the arm, software simulators are available for
improving skills with the controls and familiarity with the software.

Each student has time to practice controlling the arm for a limited time while the
arm, gamepad controls, and specific areas of the software are introduced to the
class. Then the class is divided into four teams.

Rules
Each student must attempt three manual control tasks and assist in at least three
group tasks.
Penalty for hitting the table or box sides – 5 minutes each, reflecting time lost to
investigating damage, repairs, and incident reports.
Your Foreman (Instructor) intervenes at any time to add interruptions to the
activity, adding a constraint to increase the challenge if teams are advanced or
removing an obstacle if others are struggling.
Team markers are moved along a task line as tasks are completed, effectively a
leaderboard with tallied penalties.
At the end of the “shift” the team with the most tasks completed and with the least
amount of applied penalties will win bragging rights.

A Movement Test Scaffolded Example

The movements begin at a simple level and explore each of the joints of the arm to
maintain the authenticity of the narrative.
1. Mark an X on horizontal paper with a pen held in the gripper of the arm.
Each X must have five co-ordinates recorded, each of the four ends and
where the lines cross.
2. Add a robust box to the activity to restrict the movement of the arm and
draw the character within the confines of the box.
3. Draw the character on vertical paper inside the box.
4. The character changes to a circle and parts 2 and 3 are repeated.
5. Add other characters or shapes that replicate the arm axis movements of
the robot. Examples include wavy lines, or circular motion.
6. For fast finishers, ask the students to suggest and test movements to
investigate the limits of the arm.

4
Feedback
Afterwards, feedback affords the students an opportunity to articulate what they
have learned and reflect upon the processes they used to achieve the goals set. It is
important that students have understood the point of the activity. Explore the
completed tasks and their knowledge of them to be sure the students achieve the
learning goals (Brown, Collins, and Newman, 1991).

Further Activities in the Series

This activity is the first in a possible series to explore the potential of the robotic
arm. Other games are Pincer Power (for weight lifting), Pincer Precision (for
accuracy and control), Pincer Play (replicating sports action), and Pincer Prowess
(student led creativity).

Play and Game Theories

Influenced by the ideas in Schank et al. (1993) on mission focus in goal-based
scenarios where “explanation, control, discovery, and design” (Schank et al., 1993,
p.328) help keep the activity aligned with the instructional goals. Dickey’s (2006)
ideas on game design argue for integrating narrative using a cover story, and
realistic missions where the students are testing the “new” arm’s movement range
whilst acquiring the knowledge required for accurate movement. This goal-based
scenario creates an environment to help the learner become involved, explore, and
have more control over their learning. Central to the constructivist perspective, “in
which learners build mental representations by engaging in appropriate kinds of
active cognitive processing” (Mayer, 2009, p.184), and construct their own learning
by being actively involved (Dickey, 2006, p.248), Dickey (2006, p.249) argues it
requires more scaffolding to support the learner in this environment. Students
should be monitored throughout the activity in order that guidance can be given and
learning outcomes are met. This avoids students becoming confused and failing to
understand the concepts properly (Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark, 2006).

Scaffolding is the theory that underpins the incremental skill acquisition in the tasks
set, supported by the instructor. The process here uses increasingly more difficult
tasks, limited in time to focus learning and achieve outcomes (Wood, Bruner, and
Ross, 1976).

These scaffolding techniques incorporate Gee’s (2007) incremental principle where

the attempts at the tasks are practiced and the learner can call on these lessons in
later stages of the activity. We also have the potential here to mention the transfer
principle to “use skills and strategies from previous experience by seeing underlying
similarities” (Gee, 2007, p.129) where, depending on the complexity of the tasks,
learners can incorporate their prior learning from outside the classroom.

5
The design is influenced by activity theory (Engeström and Miettinen, 1999) and the
effectiveness of using the real-world backstory may benefit from an alignment
toward Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy’s (1999) process for applying activity theory.
The process highlights the importance of genuine context, with activities, tools, and
goals that reflect real-life practice. Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) promote the
notion of a cognitive apprenticeship that incorporates these same ideas and that
constructing knowledge socially through collaboration underpins the socio-cultural
basis of activity theory (Engeström and Miettinen, 1999) helping students become
practitioners. It shows the importance of teamwork and the human-ness required to
understand and learn within the context of the narrative in the activity. Students
learn using the designed activity and aided by guidance and peers (Siyepu, 2013) to
move on from 2 dimensions (what students know) “through a zone of proximal
development” (Roschelle, 1998, p.244) into learning 3D co-ordinate understanding
and practice (what they don’t yet know)(Zaretskii, 2009).

To maintain authenticity the premise of acting as an employee is used with realistic

reasons for completing tasks efficiently. We might suggest that there is an element
of “fantasy” (Whitton, 2010, p.24) in the realistic but made-up backstory, and for
those new to the work arena some “mimicry”, behaving in character (Callois, 1962,
p.21), applying that identity to become and remain engaged.

Students should see or be prompted to see patterns that will help them complete the
tasks quicker by predicting co-ordinates, bringing the task time down. This
prediction of moves is promoted to ensure freedom to explore and challenge the
game. There are risks involved (errors inducing damage and penalties) but better in
the activity with lowered risks (Gee, 2007, p.59) than with a $100,000 robot
(robots.com, 2018).

Restrictions of the Activity

There are currently only 2 robotic arms on campus, reducing the amount of time
teams can spend manipulating the robot. This could lead to reduced engagement in
the early stages for those not using it. To counteract this, I introduced the idea of
deploying additional software simulators for students to practice the controls, and
for familiarization with the concepts and practicalities of the tasks and software. As
Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989, p.40) reflect, students “who are not taking part
directly in a particular activity learn a great deal from their legitimate position on
the periphery” suggesting that being part of a team but not doing the robot
controlling does not mean students are not learning.
Some types of students (e.g. Machinists) will not use software for their jobs and any
data input required during this activity may be beyond their course requirements
and skill set, beyond their “regime of competence” (Gee, 2007, p.69). Again, to
counterbalance a loss of interest I devised tasks 4 and beyond as team activities
allowing all students to decide which role they can take on in their team, hopefully
playing into Gee’s self-knowledge learning principle where “learners learn … about

6
themselves and their current and potential capacities” (2007, p.64). Appropriate
feedback, praising hard work and strategies rather than ability (Mueller and Dweck,
1998) and encouragement from within their team may prompt them to try a
different role.

It was identified (Taylor, 2018) that the ability to encounter simulated mechanical
errors would be advantageous for students, to problem solve fault sources and
develop solutions. It may be possible to program the software to mimic such faults
but currently that is undetermined.

The task check list, penalties, and leaderboard are recorded with pen and paper, but
it could be translated to a digital format, still utilizing a real robot, but co-ordinates,
penalties, bonuses and other game artifacts could be monitored and applied using
software with stricter time limits on tasks removing this class-based variable. Other
realistic aspects could be applied in-game, for example, damage proximity alerts or
interruptions by the Foreman when certain milestones are hit. The resources do not
exist at College level to produce such an entity.

Conclusion
Pincer Primer would be a useful tool in a series of game-informed activities that
increased the engagement levels in learning about robotic movement and 3D co-
ordinates. Sustained use could refine the game mechanics and provide data on the
effectiveness of the active learning (Mayer, 2009, p. 195). I hope the students would
find it gripping enough to motivate them to complete the whole series.

7
References
Baker, J. (2018). Conversation with Neil Davison, 28 March.

Brown, J. S., Collins, and A., Duguid, P., (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of
Learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), pp.32-42.

Collins, A., Brown, J.S. and Holum, A., 1991. Cognitive apprenticeship: Making
thinking visible. American educator, 15(3), pp.6-11.

Callois, R. (1962). The Classification of Games. In Man and Play. (London, Thames
and Hudson).

CNC, College of New Caledonia, (2108). Industrial Mechanic (Millwright)/Machinist

Foundation – Entry Requirements. Last Accessed 4 April 2018.
http://www.cnc.bc.ca/programs-courses/Industrial_Mechanic_Machinist/
Entry_requirements.htm

CPR-Robots.com, (2018a). Commonplace Robotics Mover4. Retrieved 4 April 2018.

http://www.cpr-robots.com/products/mover4.html

CPR-Robots.com, (2018ba). CPRog: 3D Robot Programming with a graphical

Program Editor. Retrieved 4 April 2018. http://www.cpr-
robots.com/products/cprog.html

Dickey, M. D., (2006). Game Design Narrative for Learning: Appropriating Adventure
Game Design Narrative Devices and Techniques for the Design of Interactive
Learning Environments.
Educational Technology Research and Development. 54(3), pp. 245-263.

Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. (1999). Activity Theory: A well-kept secret. In

Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. and Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.) (1999) Perspectives on
Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an Analytic Lens for Research in Education. Review of

Research in Education, Vol. 25, pp. 99-125

Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.
(New York, St. Martin’s Griffin).

Gee, J. P. (2009). Deep Learning Properties of Good Digital Games: How Far Can
They Go? In Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects, Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., and
Vorderer, P., (Eds). Taylor & Francis Group.

8
Government of BC, (2018). Mathematics 10 to 12 (2008). Retrieved 4 April 2018.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/k-
12/teach/curriculum/english/mathematics/mathematics-10-to-12-2008

Jonassen, D., and Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity Theory as a Framework for

Designing Constructivist Learning Environments. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 47(1), pp.61-79.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R. E., (2006). Why Minimal
Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of
Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching,
Educational Psychologist, 41(2), pp.75-86

Mayer, R. E., (2009). Constructivism as a Theory of Learning Versus Constructivism

as a Prescription for Instruction. In Tobias, S. and Duffy, T. (Eds.). Constructivist
Instruction. New York: Routledge, pp.184-200.

Mueller, C. M., and Dweck, C. S., (1998). Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine
Children’s Motivation and Performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75(1), pp.33-52.

Roschelle, J., (1998). Activity Theory: A Foundation for Designing Learning

Technology?, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(2), pp. 241-255.

Robots.com, How Much Do Industrial Robots Cost? Retrieved: 29 March 2018.

https://www.robots.com/faq/how-much-do-industrial-robots-cost-1

Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Bell, B., and Jona, M. (1993). The Design of Goal-Based
Scenarios. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(4), pp. 305-345.

Siyepu, S., (2013). The zone of proximal development in the learning of

Mathematics. South African Journal of Education, 33(2), pp. 177-190.

Taylor, P. (2018). Conversation with Neil Davison, 28 March.

Whitton, N. (2010). Recognizing the Characteristics of Digital Games. In Learning

with digital games: a practical guide to engaging students in higher education.
London: Routledge.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., and Ross, G. (1976) The Role Of Tutoring In Problem Solving.
In Bruner, J.S. (Ed.) In Search of Pedagogy, Volume 1. The Selected Works of Jerome S.
Bruner, (2006), New York: Routledge. pp. 198-208.
WorkSafe BC (2018). Young and New Workers. Retrieved 30 March 2018.
https://www.worksafebc.com/en/health-safety/education-training-
certification/young-new-worker

9
Zaretskii, V. K., (2009). The Zone of Proximal Development: What Vygotsky Did Not
Have Time to Write. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 47(6), pp. 70-
93.

10