Part 4: requires you to participate in a final individual reflection. Here you reflect on the game design process, what worked, what didn’t work, what did you learn, and what would you do differently if given the time, expertise, and means to do so? What was your greatest takeaway from this learning experience? In this reflection, you will also connect your process to the course readings and IPs (as well as your field note assignment) where possible.
Our final project reflected ETEC544 course goals by applying theories of play and game-based learning to the design of a digital learning experience, demonstrating how “serious play” can support educational outcomes, skill development, and engagement. This experience reinforced the course objective of thinking critically like a game designer while considering how digital play functions as meaningful, social, educational, and affinity spaces.
While our app still remains a proof of concept, the design process itself revealed important insights about engagement, accessibility, and meaningful learning. Throughout the process I developed a deeper understanding of key game design principles, player experience, and the challenges of translating theory into practice.
A key strength of our project was its clear focus on our audience – 10–12 year-old beginner volleyball players – that shaped our use of bright visuals, playful typography, and simple navigation. Grounded in learner-centred design, the app was intended to supplement (not replace) on-court learning by building volleyball IQ and confidence in a low-stakes environment, aligning with Gee’s (2017) view that effective games support learning through safe experimentation and experience.
Another strength of our design was to focus on player experience. We integrated progression, choice, and rewards to support motivation and sustained engagement, guided by the concept of meaningful play. Our goal was to have player actions and outcomes clear and connected, reflecting Fullerton’s (2019) player-centred philosophy. By giving players a sense of autonomy and accomplishment, we aimed to create an experience that learners would want to return to, reinforcing both skill development and confidence.
However, the process also revealed significant limitations. Using Genially constrained the level of interactivity we could achieve and our limited technical expertise meant that more complex features, such as adaptive feedback or branching scenarios, remained conceptual. We also quickly learned that the character builder was way beyond our skillset and the gap between game-based design intentions and technological implementation.
Additionally, some parts of the prototype became more linear than intended, which limited player agency. This connects to Bolter’s (2001) discussion of hypertext, where the structure of links can subtly shape user pathways, sometimes reducing the illusion of choice. This also aligns with Gee’s (2017) emphasis on identity and participation in game-based learning, where players learn through becoming part of a system.
If given more time and resources, I would have prioritized user testing, collaboration with developers (e.g., programmers, artists, animators, UI experts, etc) and the integration of more authentic gameplay scenarios, using AI to adjust for difficulty of questions adjusting to the user’s current knowledge. I would also strengthen the connection between digital learning and real-world practice, ensuring that skills transfer effectively onto the court. I would also add an AI-driven question system where the level of difficulty would adjust to the knowledge of the user. Another idea would be to have a Kahoot! style mode where coaches could use the app with their team.
My greatest takeaway is that effective game design is a complex process that requires intentional alignment between learning goals, mechanics, and user experience.
References
Bolter, J. D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fullerton, T. (2019). Game design workshop: A playcentric approach to creating innovative games. Taylor & Francis (CRS Press) Chapters 1, 2, 3.
Gee, E., & Gee, J. P. (2017). Games as distributed teaching and learning systems. Teachers College Record, 119(11). https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711901202