Principales presiones significativas sobre las masas de agua de la

The researcher began defining the desired supported learning goals for the game by first analyzing what learning gaps existed in the course in its existing format. The researcher‟s years of experience teaching the course allowed him to note certain SAD concepts and terminology that students often struggled with or failed to demonstrate appropriate understanding of. As participants in a project-based course, the students in Systems Analysis and Design spent the majority of their time working in groups on a project. Because of this, the researcher felt that the students might be missing some important conceptual lessons related to SAD because of a lack of seeing the big picture. Furthermore, a career as a systems analyst was a real possibility for these students, and a very important goal of the course was to help students understand an analyst‟s

responsibilities and necessary skills in a more engaging fashion than the day-to-day project work that can grow old over the course of a semester.

The researcher identified important concepts and terminology related to the SAD topic and determined that these would determine learning objectives for the game. He

also contacted other instructors for the course to review the objectives he had determined for the game and make recommendations regarding them. The objectives for the game were to highlight and scaffold important concepts such as those discussed above, as well as the importance of such issues as effective teamwork, appropriate change management, the dangers of scope creep, the importance of business knowledge, strong communication skills, involving stakeholders, quality control issues, stakeholder buy-in, and

understanding the overall OOSAD process and how the different models relate (see Appendix B). These concepts were covered in the class but typically as part of a short lecture or intermittently at various teaching points throughout the semester. It was felt that by using a game to shorten a project development lifecycle to one playing period on a computer, these concepts would be substantially highlighted and reinforced.

Additionally, the researcher felt it was important to scaffold terminology used in the course, including terms such as scope creep, change management, stakeholders, and feasibility (see Appendix B). And, the researcher also felt that it was important to help students to recognize the relationship between managing scope creep, fully identifying system requirements, managing change requests, developing a quality system, and meeting schedule requirements, as well as understanding the iterative nature of the OOSAD process and how models relate to each other and should be frequently revised to reflect changes in the project. Furthermore, it was important to try to convey how, in real- world projects, Murphy‟s Law (what can go wrong, will go wrong, and at the worst possible time) and unpredictability are the norm. It was felt that the more isolated and static nature of the classroom project did not represent these issues and relationships well. What Did and Did Not Go Well?

In determining the learning goals for the game, the researcher felt confidence in his analysis of learning goals based on past experience teaching the course. However, despite repeated attempts, feedback on these goals from other instructors was minimal and largely only supportive in nature without providing additional insights. Because of this, the researcher felt somewhat isolated in identifying the goals, a crucial aspect of designing the game. The researcher also removed some potential learning goals due to the challenge that would be presented in trying to incorporate them in the game. This is also discussed in sub-method 1.3 as part of the feasibility analysis but is worth mentioning here as well. A key goal of the course and SAD as a topic is helping learners to become comfortable using specific tools of an SAD methodology in the form of design models. This and the inclusion of OO programming terminology and concepts were other goals which were originally brainstormed by the researcher but removed from the final list due to game scope issues.

Tentative Recommendations

While the researcher felt comfortable with the learning goals he defined for the game, there was no true evaluation of the relevance or importance of these goals. As mentioned above, the researcher did seek additional input from other instructors but was largely unsuccessful in obtaining much of value.

The theory could be strengthened by providing guidelines for evaluating the importance and relevance of learning goals and reaching consensus on learning goals when a team of designers is involved. Furthermore, the theory offered no guidance outside of its stated goals on evaluating the appropriateness of learning goals for the GATE theory. As the developer of the GATE theory, the researcher felt comfortable in

specifying learning goals that focus on developing greater understanding of SAD

concepts and problem solving skills. However, the identification of learning goals could have been greatly guided through input from the students themselves. However, student input on learning goals was never obtained at any point in the process of defining those goals, and the theory might be improved by specifying such an approach.