skip to main content
10.1145/3448696.3448700acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesafrichiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Virtually Escaping Lock Down - co-designing a mixed reality escape room narrative with Namibian learners-

Published:08 July 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Covid-19 pandemic and consequent lock down measures, disrupted our ongoing co-design of a mixed-reality escape room with grade 6 and 7 learners from a public school in Namibia. Consequentially, we launched into a remote participatory escape room narrative process with 10 learners reachable via mobile phones over a period of five months. Following a guided escape room narrative procedure we adapted activities progressively within an iterative approach of task completion, analysis, discussion and reflection. Student responses were analysed using Ekman’s emotion theory, to determine dominate emotions. We discuss how the prevalent emotions identified are to be guiding the final design of the narrative as well as the puzzles for an engaging mixed reality escape room experience. We further share our learning in accounting for technical as well as conceptual challenges in the remote interactions with the children considering the lack of resources as well as how the lock-down has affected the narrative design.

References

  1. [n.d.]. Blueprint for Crafting your first DIY Escape Room. Retrieved September 24, 2020 from https://lockpaperscissors.co/escape-room-design-blueprint/step1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [n.d.]. Nearly Half of World’s Population Excluded from ’Benefits of Digitalization’, Speaker Stresses as Second Committee Debates Information Technology for Development | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases. https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/gaef3523.doc.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Regina Bernhaupt, Andreas Boldt, Thomas Mirlacher, David Wilfinger, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2007. Using emotion in games: emotional flowers. In Proceedings of the international conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology. 41–48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Kirsten Boehner, Rogério DePaula, Paul Dourish, and Phoebe Sengers. 2007. How emotion is made and measured. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65, 4 (2007), 275 – 291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.11.016 Evaluating affective interactions.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Cara Broadley and Paul Smith. 2018. Co-design at a distance: Context, participation, and ownership in geographically distributed design processes. The Design Journal 21, 3 (2018), 395–415.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Amaresh Chakrabarti, Ashish Gupta, 2007. Design for emotions. In DS 42: Proceedings of ICED 2007, the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France, 28.-31.07. 2007. 823–824.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Leon Cruickshank, Gemma Coupe, and Dee Hennessy. 2013. Co-Design: fundamental issues and guidelines for designers: Beyond the Castle Case Study. Swedish Design Research Journal 10 (2013), 48–57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Penny De Byl. 2015. A conceptual affective design framework for the use of emotions in computer game design. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 9, 3(2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Pieter Desmet, Kees Overbeeke, and Stefan Tax. 2001. Designing products with added emotional value: Development and appllcation of an approach for research through design. The design journal 4, 1 (2001), 32–47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Allison Druin. 2002. The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and information technology 21, 1 (2002), 1–25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Paul Ekman. 2004. Emotions revealed. Bmj 328, Suppl S5 (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Panagiotis Fotaris and Theodoros Mastoras. 2019. Escape rooms for learning: A systematic review. In ECGBL 2019 13th European Conference on Game-Based Learning. Academic Conferences and publishing limited Denmark.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. R. Gennari, A. Melonio, D. Raccanello, M. Brondino, G. Dodero, M. Pasini, and S. Torello. 2017. Children’s emotions and quality of products in participatory game design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 101 (2017), 45 – 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.01.006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Egon G Guba and Yvonna S Lincoln. 1981. Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches.Jossey-Bass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Outi Heikkinen and Julia Shumeyko. 2016. Designing an escape room with the experience pyramid model. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Helvi Itenge-Wheeler, Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, Alessandro Soro, and Margot Brereton. 2018. Child Designers Creating Personas to Diversify Design Perspectives and Concepts for Their Own Technology Enhanced Library. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Trondheim, Norway) (IDC ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3202760Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Ole Sejer Iversen, Rachel Charlotte Smith, and Christian Dindler. 2017. Child as Protagonist: Expanding the Role of Children in Participatory Design. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Stanford, California, USA) (IDC ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078072.3079725Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Rilla Khaled and Asimina Vasalou. 2014. Bridging serious games and participatory design. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 2, 2(2014), 93–100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Michael Lankes, Stefan Riegler, Astrid Weiss, Thomas Mirlacher, Michael Pirker, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2008. Facial expressions as game input with different emotional feedback conditions. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. 253–256.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Stéphanie Mailles-Viard Metz, Christophe Renaut, and Jean-Laurent Cassier. 2006. Distant Co-Design Among Professionals: A Proposal For Existing Activities Classification. In Meeting Diversity in Ergonomics Proceedings IEA 2006 Congress. Maastricht, Netherlands, –. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00360973Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Oussama Metatla, Janet C Read, and Matthew Horton. 2020. Enabling children to design for others with expanded proxy design. In Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference. 184–197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Veselina Milanova, Thomas Mandl, and Ralph Kölle. 2012. Design for emotion: a case study. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services companion. 59–64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Scott Nicholson. 2018. Creating engaging escape rooms for the classroom. Childhood Education 94, 1 (2018), 44–49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Donald A Norman and Andrew Ortony. 2003. Designers and users: Two perspectives on emotion and design. In Symposium on foundations of interaction design. 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Michael Quinn Patton. 2002. Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative social work 1, 3 (2002), 261–283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Robert Plutchik. 2001. The Nature of Emotions: Human emotions have deep evolutionary roots, a fact that may explain their complexity and provide tools for clinical practice. American Scientist 89, 4 (2001), 344–350. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27857503Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. JK Rowling. [n.d.]. Hogwarts Digital Escape Room. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSflNxNM0jzbZJjUqOcXkwhGTfii4CM_CA3kCxImbY8c3AABEA/viewformGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jesse Schell. 2008. The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses (1 ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Alpár István Vita Vörös and Zsuzsa Sárközi. 2017. Physics escape room as an educational tool. In AIP Conference Proceedings 1916(1): TIM17 PHYSICS CONFERENCE. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5017455Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Greg Walsh, Allison Druin, Mona Leigh Guha, Elizabeth Bonsignore, Elizabeth Foss, Jason C Yip, Evan Golub, Tamara Clegg, Quincy Brown, Robin Brewer, 2012. DisCo: a co-design online tool for asynchronous distributed child and adult design partners. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. 11–19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Virtually Escaping Lock Down - co-designing a mixed reality escape room narrative with Namibian learners-
      Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        AfriCHI '21: Proceedings of the 3rd African Human-Computer Interaction Conference: Inclusiveness and Empowerment
        March 2021
        182 pages
        ISBN:9781450388696
        DOI:10.1145/3448696

        Copyright © 2021 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 8 July 2021

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format