PR:EPARe: Developing Practitioner and Student Motivation in Relationship and Sex Education (RSE), through a Game Based Learning Approach by Sylvester Arnab, Samantha Clarke & Alex Woolner

1. PR:EPARE: Developing
Practitioner and Student
Motivation in Relationship and
Sex Education (RSE) through a
Game Based Approach.
Samantha Clarke
Sylvester Arnab
Alex Woolner

2. SEX

3. Overview
• PR:EPARE
Serious Game
for RSE
• Positive
Relationships:
Eliminating
Pressure &
coercion from
Adolescent
Relationships

4. Introduction
• Funding from the Health Innovation &
Education Cluster (HIEC) West Midlands
(South)
– part of the NHS confederation in the UK
• Proposed development & evaluation of a
serious game for RSE using an
intervention mapping approach
(Bartholomew et al., 2011)
• Iterative process for health promotion
• Theory & evidence and stakeholders
• Evaluation and implementation

5. Introduction
• Aim: to develop and evaluate an interactive
intervention object that addressed an identified
need in RSE
– Met the needs of stakeholders
– Involved end-users and stakeholders in the
development
– Drew on the theory and evidence base to maximise
the likelihood that the intervention would have a
positive impact on identified outcome measures
• Rapid systematic literature review
– Sex education can be effective when it is
multi-faceted
– Limits of a single Serious Game

6. Game development
• Brown, Bayley & Newby (2012)
• Stakeholder groups
– Professionals
– 4 x young peoples’ groups
• Identified sexual coercion as a major issue
for young people
• More literature review to identify factors
that predict experience of coercion
– Cultural, environmental, previous abuse
– Interested in psychological predictors

7. Change objectives & methods
• Expect there to be negative consequences of
allowing unwanted sexual advances to continue
– Provide information about and depict the possible
negative consequences
• Identify the nature and levels of sexual coercion
– Give feedback on identification of situations as
coercive or not (include a range of natures and levels
to consider)
• Recognise self as at potential risk of sexual
coercion
– Encourage thinking about how common coercion
can be in its different forms and levels

8. Matrices of change examples

9. Application in a game concept
• Full game concept developed in
collaboration with SASH colleagues
• Interpreted into gaming techniques
• Part 1 – game show quiz
– Scenarios around what is coercion?
– Yes, no, maybe responses
• Part 2 – first person role play
– Scenario 1 - Play role of coerced
– Scenario 2 - Play role of person being
coercive

10. Game demo

11. Design
• Two factors to consider:
• Participatory Design
• User Research….Who are the users?
• Where does the motivation lie?

12. Design Breakdown
• Practitioner Centred Design:
Lesson planning, Time Management, Group Discussion, Control of
Scenarios, Fits with technology available (Smartboards), Score
(Evaluation)
• Student Centred Design
Combination of 3D and 2D Graphics, Game show Narrative, Audio,
Group play or solo play encouraging open communication, Competitive
element for motivation,
Treat them like adults….

13. Design Hurdles?
Where to start….
• The Participatory Approach..
• Constraints….
• Time, Budget, Team, Ideals…
• Attitudes to Sex Education
• Culture, Religion, Ethics, Upbringing, Curriculum
.

14. Evaluation design
• Study 1 small-scale cluster randomised
controlled trial based on part1 of game
only (N=505) – 17 clusters (7 control; 10
game)
• Study 2 pre-post evaluation study based
on whole game (N=257)
• Participants were male and female
secondary school students in
Warwickshire and the West Midlands
• In school year 9, aged13-14 years

15. Scale refinement
• 16 measures aligned with change objectives
• Exploratory factor analysis – 5 underlying
factors – but items only loaded onto 3
• Confirmatory factor analysis – forced 3
factor solution and varimax rotation
– Factor 1 – confidence to recognise and act
– Factor 2 – knowledge and positivity towards
saying no/others saying no
– Factor 3 – understanding of personal risk and
consequences

16. Findings study 1
• 2 (time) x 2 (condition) mixed MANOVA
– Significant main effect of time F[3,501]=2.847,
p=0.037, ŋp2=.0.17
– Significant time x condition interaction
F[3,501]=15.306, p<.001, ŋp2=.0.84
• Lower score represents greater
psychological preparedness for coercion

17. Findings study 1 (factor 1)

18. Findings study 1 (factor 2)

19. Findings study 1 (factor 3)

20. Findings study 2
• Repeated measures MANOVA comparing
pre-post scores amongst a 2nd cohort of
game players.
• Picture mixed – nothing significant relating
to confidence to recognise & act
• Reduction in positivity around refusal
• Increase in understanding of personal risk
and consequences

21. Discussion
• Somewhat mixed picture emerging
– Confidence to recognise coercion and act – some
evidence that there’s a positive effect from the
CRCT study 1 (both conditions) plus null finding in
study 2
– Knowledge and positive attitudes towards saying
no/others saying no – evidence is concerning -
control does better than game in CRCT initial study
– Understanding personal risk and consequences
– findings from both studies show significant for
improvements

22. Conclusions and next steps
• There are some positive outcomes in
relation to impact of game on psychological
preparedness for dealing with coercion
• There’s a need for further exploration – this
was early beta testing
• The next stages need to examine the
impact of participatory design on motivation.
• What Design elements worked?
• PR:EPARe is being deployed in Coventry
and Warwickshire area.

23. Thanks for listening!
samantha@sgs-lab.com
www.seriousgamesinstitute.co.uk