statements pertaining to the user interface: 1)
“Viewing the screen of the woodlands management
game made it easy to see the condition of the
woodlands,” and 2) “The woodland management
game was easy to play.” The responses to each of
the six statements were rated on a 7-point Likert
scale that ranged from “Strongly Agree” to
“Strongly Disagree.”
The survey was conducted from December 19 to
22, 2016. Figure 4 shows the environment of the
experiment.
3.2 Result
We sorted the responses into positive (Strongly
Agree, Agree, Somewhat Agree), and
neutral/negative (Neither Agree nor Disagree,
Somewhat Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree).
We then analyzed the number of positive and
neutral/negative responses by using Fisher’s exact
test, with a 1 x 2 contingency table.
Table 2 summarizes the questionnaire results.
When evaluating the results of user engagement with
the woodlands management game experience,
positive responses to all four statements
outnumbered neutral/negative responses. A
significant bias was observed among the number of
responses.
We then evaluated results for the woodlands
management game interface. Positive responses to
both questions again outnumbered neutral/negative
responses, and a significant bias was again observed
among the numbers of responses.
4 CONCLUSIONS
This paper concerns development and evaluation of
a game for managing undeveloped woodlands near
populated areas; the game also provides practical
training by simulating woodland management
experience. Positive responses outnumbered
neutral/negative responses for all four items
regarding user engagement of the game, and for both
the items concerning the user interface. The
difference between the numbers of responses was
significant.
These results show that the participants played
the woodland management game with enthusiasm.
The results also show the participants put
considerable thought into game strategies pertaining
to simulated changes in the woodlands.
Possible additions to the study may be the
conducting of a video analysis of the participants
playing the game, and qualitatively evaluating the
effectiveness of the game as a tool for studying plant
succession and learning woodland management
support. Other possibilities would be to conduct a
comprehensive analysis of data obtained by
evaluation tests, and to discuss ways in which the
game may be improved.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant
Numbers JP26282061, JP26560129, JP15H02936,
JP16H03059, and JP16H01814. The experiment was
supported by Kobe Elementary School.
REFERENCES
Facer, K., Joiner, R., Stanton, D., Reid, J., Hull, R. &
Kirk, D. (2004) ‘Savannah: mobile gaming and
learning?’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol.
Table 2: Subjective assessment of woodlands game experience.
Statements 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
I enjoyed playing the woodlands management game. ** 22 15 1 0 0 0 0
The game got me engaged in woodlands management. ** 17 15 6 0 0 0 0
I was emotionally affected by score (happy, disappointed etc.) ** 16 16 4 2 0 0 0
I was happy when I was able to predict accurately the changes caused by such
actions as tree planting, lumbering, pesticide spraying, and deer culling. **
9 22 5 2 0 0 0
Viewing the screen of the woodlands management game made it easy for me to
see the condition of the woodlands. **
19 9 8 2 0 0 0
The woodland management game was easy to play. ** 22 8 5 3 0 0 0
N = 38, 7: Strongly Agree, 6: Agree, 5: Somewhat Agree, 4: Neither Agree nor Disagree, 3: Somewhat Disagree,
2: Disagree, 1: Strongly Disagree, **; p < 0.01