Have a personal or library account? Click to login
A Survey of Citizen Science Gaming Experiences Cover

A Survey of Citizen Science Gaming Experiences

Citizen Science: Theory and Practice
Volume 7 (2022): Issue 1
By: Josh Aaron Miller,  Kutub Gandhi,  Anna Gander and  Seth Cooper  
Open Access
|Oct 2022

References

  1. 1Alexandrovsky, D, Friehs, MA, Birk, MV, Yates, RK and Mandryk, RL. 2019. Game Dynamics that Support Snacking, not Feasting. In: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. Barcelona, Spain: ACM, 573–588. DOI: 10.1145/3311350.3347151
    Back to article
  2. 2Aristeidou, M and Herodotou, C. 2020. Online citizen science: A systematic review of effects on learning and scientific literacy. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 5: 1–12. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.224
    Back to article
  3. 3Aristeidou, M, Scanlon, E and Sharples, M. 2017. Profiles of engagement in online communities of citizen science participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 74: 246–256. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.044
    Back to article
  4. 4Becker-Klein, R, Peterman, K and Stylinski, C. 2016. Embedded Assessment as an Essential Method for Understanding Public Engagement in Citizen Science. CSTP, 1: 8. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.15
    Back to article
  5. 5Bowser, A, Hansen, D, He, Y, Boston, C, Reid, M, Gunnell, L and Preece, J. 2013. Using gamification to inspire new citizen science volunteers. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: ACM, 18–25. DOI: 10.1145/2583008.2583011
    Back to article
  6. 6Clark, O. 2014. Games As A Service: How Free to Play Design Can Make Better Games, 1st ed. Burlington, MA, USA: Focal Press.
    Back to article
  7. 7Clary, EG and Snyder, M. 1999. The Motivations to Volunteer: Theoretical and Practical Considerations. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 8: 156–159. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8721.00037
    Back to article
  8. 8Cooper, S. 2011. A framework for scientific discovery through video games (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Washington.
    Back to article
  9. 9Curtis, V. 2018. Who Takes Part in Online Citizen Science? In: Online Citizen Science and the Widening of Academia. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 45–68. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-77664-4_3
    Back to article
  10. 10Curtis, V. 2015. Motivation to Participate in an Online Citizen Science Game: A Study of Foldit. Science Communication, 37: 723–746. DOI: 10.1177/1075547015609322
    Back to article
  11. 11d’Ornellas, MC, Cargnin, DJ and Prado, ALC. 2015. Evaluating the Impact of Player Experience in the Design of a Serious Game for Upper Extremity Stroke Rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the 15th World Congress on Health and Biomedical Informatics. IOS Press, 363–367.
    Back to article
  12. 12de Vries, M, Land-Zandstra, A and Smeets, I. 2019. Citizen scientists’ preferences for communication of scientific output: a literature review. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4: 2. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.136
    Back to article
  13. 13Delgado, JCS and Bazán, P. 2019. Educational Serious Games as a Service: Challenges and Solutions. JC&ST, 19: e07. DOI: 10.24215/16666038.19.e07
    Back to article
  14. 14Desurvire, H and Wiberg, C. 2009. Game Usability Heuristics (PLAY) for Evaluating and Designing Better Games: The Next Iteration. In: Ozok, AA and Zaphiris, P. (Eds.), Online Communities and Social Computing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 557–566. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-02774-1_60
    Back to article
  15. 15Díaz, C, Ponti, M, Haikka, P, Basaiawmoit, R and Sherson, J. 2020. More than data gatherers: exploring player experience in a citizen science game. Qual User Exp, 5: 1. DOI: 10.1007/s41233-019-0030-8
    Back to article
  16. 16Elo, S and Kyngäs, H, 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs, 62: 107–115. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
    Back to article
  17. 17Eveleigh, A, Jennett, C, Blandford, A, Brohan, P and Cox, AL. 2014. Designing for dabblers and deterring drop-outs in citizen science. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: ACM, 2985–2994. DOI: 10.1145/2556288.2557262
    Back to article
  18. 18Eveleigh, A, Jennett, C, Lynn, S and Cox, AL. 2013. “I want to be a captain! I want to be a captain!”: gamification in the old weather citizen science project. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: ACM, 79–82. DOI: 10.1145/2583008.2583019
    Back to article
  19. 19Farley, PC. 2013. Using the Computer Game “FoldIt” to Entice Students to Explore External Representations of Protein Structure in a Biochemistry Course for Nonmajors. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ, 41: 56–57. DOI: 10.1002/bmb.20655
    Back to article
  20. 20Forman, J and Damschroder, L, 2007. Qualitative Content Analysis. In: Advances in Bioethics. Elsevier, 39–62. DOI: 10.1016/S1479-3709(07)11003-7
    Back to article
  21. 21Gee, JP. 2005. Learning by Design: Good Video Games as Learning Machines. E-Learning and Digital Media, 2: 5–16. DOI: 10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.5
    Back to article
  22. 22Guest, G and MacQueen, KM. (Eds.), 2008. Handbook for team-based qualitative research. Altamira, Lanham.
    Back to article
  23. 23Hsieh, H-F and Shannon, SE. 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual Health Res, 15: 1277–1288. DOI: 10.1177/1049732305276687
    Back to article
  24. 24Iacovides, I, Jennett, C, Cornish-Trestrail, C and Cox, AL. 2013. Do games attract or sustain engagement in citizen science?: a study of volunteer motivations. In: CHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1101–1106. DOI: 10.1145/2468356.2468553
    Back to article
  25. 25Jackson, C. 2019. Characterizing Novelty as a Motivator in Online Citizen Science (PhD Thesis). Syracuse University.
    Back to article
  26. 26Jennett, C, Kloetzer, L, Schneider, D, Iacovides, I, Cox, A, Gold, M, Fuchs, B, Eveleigh, A, Mathieu, K, Ajani, Z and Talsi, Y. 2016. Motivations, learning and creativity in online citizen science. JCOM, 15: A05. DOI: 10.22323/2.15030205
    Back to article
  27. 27Keep, BE. 2018. Becoming Expert Problem Solvers: A Case Study in what Develops and how. Stanford University.
    Back to article
  28. 28Kim, S, Robson, C, Zimmerman, T, Pierce, J and Haber, EM. 2011. Creek watch: pairing usefulness and usability for successful citizen science. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Vancouver, BC, Canada: ACM, 2125–2134. DOI: 10.1145/1978942.1979251
    Back to article
  29. 29Korhonen, H and Koivisto, EMI. 2006. Playability heuristics for mobile games. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services – MobileHCI ’06. Helsinki, Finland: ACM Press, 9. DOI: 10.1145/1152215.1152218
    Back to article
  30. 30Krippendorff, K. 2011. Computing Krippendorff’s Alpha-Reliability. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/43.
    Back to article
  31. 31Legner, L, Eghtebas, C and Klinker, G. 2019. Persuasive Mobile Game Mechanics For User Retention. In: Extended Abstracts of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts. Presented at the CHI PLAY ’19: The Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, ACM, Barcelona Spain, 493–500. DOI: 10.1145/3341215.3356261
    Back to article
  32. 32Lomas, JD, Koedinger, K, Patel, N, Shodhan, S, Poonwala, N and Forlizzi, JL. 2017. Is Difficulty Overrated?: The Effects of Choice, Novelty and Suspense on Intrinsic Motivation in Educational Games. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Denver Colorado USA, 1028–1039. DOI: 10.1145/3025453.3025638
    Back to article
  33. 33Lomas, JD, Patel, K, Forlizzi, JL and Koedinger, KR. 2013. Optimizing challenge in an educational game using large-scale design experiments. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Paris France, 89–98. DOI: 10.1145/2470654.2470668
    Back to article
  34. 34MacQueen, KM, McLellan, E, Kay, K and Milstein, B. 1998. Codebook Development for Team-Based Qualitative Analysis. CAM Journal, 10: 31–36. DOI: 10.1177/1525822X980100020301
    Back to article
  35. 35Miller, JA and Cooper, S. 2022. Barriers to Expertise in Citizen Science Games, in: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, p. in press. DOI: 10.1145/3491102.3517541
    Back to article
  36. 36Miller, JA, Horn, B, Guthrie, M, Romano, J, Geva, G, David, C, Sterling, AR and Cooper, S. 2021. How do Players and Developers of Citizen Science Games Conceptualize Skill Chains?, in: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3474671
    Back to article
  37. 37Miller, JA, Khatib, F, Hammond, H, Cooper, S and Horowitz, S. 2020. Introducing Foldit Education Mode. Nat Struct Mol Biol, 27, 769–770. DOI: 10.1038/s41594-020-0485-6
    Back to article
  38. 38Newman, G, Wiggins, A, Crall, A, Graham, E, Newman, S and Crowston, K. 2012. The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10: 298–304. DOI: 10.1890/110294
    Back to article
  39. 39Olsen, T, Procci, K and Bowers, C. 2011. Serious games usability testing: How to ensure proper usability, playability, and effectiveness, in: International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability. Springer, 625–634. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-21708-1_70
    Back to article
  40. 40Osborne, D. 2016. Tales From a Crowdsourced Game Design.
    Back to article
  41. 41Palacin, V, Gilbert, S, Orchard, S, Eaton, A, Ferrario, MA and Happonen, A. 2020. Drivers of participation in digital citizen science: Case Studies on Järviwiki and safecast. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 5. DOI: 10.22323/2.15030205
    Back to article
  42. 42Palacin-Silva, MV, Knutas, A, Ferrario, MA, Porras, J, Ikonen, J and Chea, C. 2018. The Role of Gamification in Participatory Environmental Sensing: A Study In the Wild, in: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Montreal QC Canada, 1–13. DOI: 10.1145/3173574.3173795
    Back to article
  43. 43Paleco, C, García Peter, S, Salas Seoane, N, Kaufmann, J and Argyri, P. 2021. Inclusiveness and Diversity in Citizen Science. In: Vohland, K, Land-Zandstra, A, Ceccaroni, L, Lemmens, R, Perelló, J, Ponti, M, Samson, R and Wagenknecht, K. (Eds.), The Science of Citizen Science. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 261–281. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_14
    Back to article
  44. 44Ponti, M, Hillman, T, Kullenberg, C and Kasperowski, D. 2018. Getting it Right or Being Top Rank: Games in Citizen Science. CSTP, 3: 1. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.101
    Back to article
  45. 45Prestopnik, N. 2010. Theory, Design and Evaluation – (Don’t Just) Pick any Two. THCI, 2: 167–177. DOI: 10.17705/1thci.00021
    Back to article
  46. 46Prestopnik, NR and Tang, J. 2015. Points, stories, worlds, and diegesis: Comparing player experiences in two citizen science games. Computers in Human Behavior, 52: 492–506. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.051
    Back to article
  47. 47Rienzo, A and Cubillos, C. 2020. Playability and player experience in digital games for elderly: A systematic literature review. Sensors, 20: 3958. DOI: 10.3390/s20143958
    Back to article
  48. 48Rotman, D, Hammock, J, Jenny, P, Hansen, D, Boston, C, Bowser, A and He, Y. 2014. Motivations Affecting Initial and Long-Term Participation in Citizen Science Projects in Three Countries. In: IConference 2014 Proceedings. iSchools. DOI: 10.9776/14054
    Back to article
  49. 49Rüfenacht, S, Woods, T, Agnello, G, Gold, M, Hummer, P, Land-Zandstra, A and Sieber, A. 2021. Communication and Dissemination in Citizen Science. In: Vohland, K, Land-Zandstra, A, Ceccaroni, L, Lemmens, R, Perelló, J, Ponti, M, Samson, R and Wagenknecht, K. (Eds.), The Science of Citizen Science. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 475–494. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_24
    Back to article
  50. 50Schreier, M. 2012. Qualitative content analysis in practice. Los Angeles: SAGE.
    Back to article
  51. 51Schrier, K. 2017. Designing Learning with Citizen Science and Games 4, 9.
    Back to article
  52. 52Shannon, A, Boyce, A, Gadwal, C and Barnes, DT. 2013. Effective Practices in Game Tutorial Systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. ACM, 8.
    Back to article
  53. 53Skarlatidou, A, Hamilton, A, Vitos, M and Haklay, M. 2019. What do volunteers want from citizen science technologies? A systematic literature review and best practice guidelines. JCOM, 18: A02. DOI: 10.22323/2.18010202
    Back to article
  54. 54Spiers, H, Swanson, A, Fortson, L, Simmons, B, Trouille, L, Blickhan, S and Lintott, C. 2019. Everyone counts? Design considerations in online citizen science. JCOM, 18: A04. DOI: 10.22323/2.18010204
    Back to article
  55. 55Sullivan, DP, Winsnes, CF, Åkesson, L, Hjelmare, M, Wiking, M, Schutten, R, Campbell, L, Leifsson, H, Rhodes, S, Nordgren, A, Smith, K, Revaz, B, Finnbogason, B, Szantner, A and Lundberg, E. 2018. Deep learning is combined with massive-scale citizen science to improve large-scale image classification. Nat Biotechnol, 36: 820–828. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4225
    Back to article
  56. 56Tasnim, RA and Eishita, FZ. 2021. Analyzing the Distinctive Impact of Personality Traits on Serious Gameplay Experience. In: 2021 IEEE 9th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH). IEEE, 1–8. DOI: 10.1109/SEGAH52098.2021.9551856
    Back to article
  57. 57Tinati, R, Luczak-Rösch, M, Simperl, E and Hall, W. 2016. Because science is awesome: studying participation in a citizen science game. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science. ACM, Hannover Germany, 45–54. DOI: 10.1145/2908131.2908151
    Back to article
  58. 58Tuite, K. 2014. GWAPs: Games with a Problem. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. ACM, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA, 7.
    Back to article
  59. 59Waldispühl, J, Szantner, A, Knight, R, Caisse, S and Pitchford, R. 2020. Leveling up citizen science. Nat Biotechnol, 38, 1124–1126. DOI: 10.1038/s41587-020-0694-x
    Back to article
  60. 60Wiemeyer, J, Nacke, L, Moser, C and ‘Floyd’ Mueller, F, 2016. Player Experience. In: Dörner, R, Göbel, S, Effelsberg, W and Wiemeyer, J. (Eds.), Serious Games. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 243–271. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-40612-1_9
    Back to article
  61. 61Wiggins, A and Crowston, K. 2015. Surveying the citizen science landscape. FM 75. DOI: 10.5210/fm.v20i1.5520
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.500 | Journal eISSN: 2057-4991
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Jan 19, 2022
Accepted on: Oct 4, 2022
Published on: Oct 25, 2022
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
citizen science games,
survey,
player experience

© 2022 Josh Aaron Miller, Kutub Gandhi, Anna Gander, Seth Cooper, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 7 (2022): Issue 1Next article