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

• ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01808066
• Recruitment Status: Completed
• First Posted: March 11, 2013
• Results First Posted: September 9, 2014
• Last Update Posted: October 16, 2019
• Sponsor: CogCubed, Corp
• Collaborator: Ohio University
• Information provided by (Responsible Party): CogCubed, Corp

Study Description

Brief Summary:

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?

Condition or disease	Intervention/treatment	Phase
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Pervasive Developmental Disorder; Asperger's Disorder	Device: Groundskeeper	Not Applicable

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 Design

• Study Type: Interventional (Clinical Trial)
• Actual Enrollment: 21 participants
• Allocation: N/A
• Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
• Masking: None (Open Label)
• Primary Purpose: Treatment
• Official Title: GroundsKeeper: A Qualitative Study of Applied Game-based Interactives in Special Education Programs
• Study Start Date: January 2013
• Actual Primary Completion Date: May 2013
• Actual Study Completion Date: May 2013

Arms and Interventions

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 Name: Executive Function Training Game

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures :

1. Number of Participants With an Increase/Improvement in Focusing [ Time Frame: 3 weeks ]
   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.

Secondary Outcome Measures :

1. Number of Participants Identified as Attentive, Interested and Motivated Via Pre Interview [ Time Frame: Day 1 ]
   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.

Other Outcome Measures:

1. Number of Participants by Teachers Identified as Attentive, Interested and Motivated Via Pre Interview [ Time Frame: Day 1 ]
   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.
2. Number of Participants Identified as Interested and Improved Quality of Life in Classroom Via Post Test Interview [ Time Frame: Day 21 ]
   After playing game for three weeks, researchers will interview participants about their interest in the game and changes in quality of life (no forms).
3. Number of Participants Identified by Teachers as Attentive, Interested and Motivated Following Testing Via Post Test Interview [ Time Frame: Day 21 ]

   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

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 5 Years to 12 Years (Child)
• Sexes Eligible for Study: All
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Criteria

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

Contacts and Locations

Locations

United States, Ohio

Ohio University

Athens, Ohio, United States, 45701

Sponsors and Collaborators

CogCubed, Corp

Ohio University

Investigators

• Principal Investigator: Seann Dikkers, PhD; Ohio University

More Information

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.

• Responsible Party: CogCubed, Corp
• ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01808066
• Other Study ID Numbers: 12X226; 12X226 ( Other Identifier: Ohio University IRB )
• First Posted: March 11, 2013
• Results First Posted: September 9, 2014
• Last Update Posted: October 16, 2019
• Last Verified: October 2019

Additional relevant MeSH terms:

Disease; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Developmental Disabilities; Asperger Syndrome; Pathologic Processes; Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders; Neurodevelopmental Disorders; Mental Disorders; Child Development Disorders, Pervasive