How Do You Determine If Your Learning Game’s Pacing Is Appropriate?
One of the most significant challenges I’ve encountered while designing my digital learning game, which teaches players about the XY coordinate plane, is determining whether the pacing is too fast or too slow. Who gets to decide what’s appropriate? This question has been central to my design process, and I’d like to share how I arrived at it and my approach to addressing it.
Understanding the Vocabulary and Framing the Question:
The intersection of human-computer interaction in teaching game mechanics is both a science and an art. While there are various approaches that work, none provide a definitive “one-size-fits-all” solution for determining when a player has mastered a complex mechanic. This is especially true when considering the age and audience of the players.
In digital learning games, game mechanics and academic lessons are deeply intertwined. Mastering a game mechanic directly correlates with understanding the academic concept—this interplay I’ll refer to as “knowledge acquisition” (KA). That’s not all there is to learning a game mechanic, as retention of this knowledge (“knowledge retention,” or KR) is equally important. Just like in traditional gaming, where challenges like puzzles or bosses are reused to reinforce skills, digital learning games must balance KA and KR to ensure long-term understanding and engagement.
The Role of Pacing:
I argue that pacing in games is fundamentally driven by how well players acquire and retain knowledge. So, if the learning game progresses too quickly, students may become overwhelmed, making post-evluation difficult to identify where they began struggling. Conversely, if the pacing is too slow, students may disengage as the game becomes repetitive and lacks challenge.
I’ve outlined three potential pacing approaches for digital learning games:
-
Crawling Pace (Standard Pedagogy):
The level’s length only ends when it is ensured that KA has been mastered. Then the next lesson arrives that builds on the previous one for KR. This method simplifies post-evaluation, as it’s easier to identify where students struggle. But transforms the game into a series of drill sheets. KA can be acquired early by skilled students/players, but they are locked into the level until all the KA checks have cleared, driving down their motivation as the challenge dissipate for minutes at a time. -
Traditional Pace (1990s Game Design):
The level’s length ends once it determines the KA is sufficient, then progresses to the next level for additional KA and KR. Post-evaluation becomes more complex, often requiring interviews to uncover struggles. -
Rapid Pace (Modern Game Design):
Introduce 2–3 lessons simultaneously or within the same level, blending KA and KR. For example, a level is divided into 3 acts. The first act introduces the first lesson in isolation. The second act introduces the second lesson in isolation. The third act blends both the first lesson and second lesson together for a entirely new experience just before the ending. Once it is determined that the KA and KR is succicient, then the level terminates. Levels after this allow time for further KR. This complex rapid pacing requires mandatory post-evaluation interviews, as no built-in system can easily identify why students could struggle.
My Choice of Pacing Approach:
After careful consideration, I believe the third approach—introducing multiple lessons simultaneously—is the most effective for creating an engaging learning game. This method allows players to learn at their own pace by retrying levels if needed. While this pacing may seem fast, it empowers students to control their progress and gives them the ability to fully understand each concept before moving forward. Some students may “floor it” to the next level even though they just barely have the KA the previous level. But, this is critical to their engagement with the material. As further levels (or bosses) can always verify that KA and KR has been completely mastered before the game congratulates them for their ultimate success.
That said, I recognize potential challenges with implementing this approach, such as tracking student progress without extensive post-evaluation or integrating a robust learning management system (LMS). These hurdles must be addressed to ensure the game remains both effective and user-friendly.
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts or approaches to this problem.