https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2174-0983
Figures
Abstract
Over the past few decades, a growing body of evidence has emerged regarding the positive impact of boardgames in promoting life skills and well-being in various settings including health, education, and military schooling. However, the use of boardgames with inmates for cultural and educational purposes is still an unexplored and fragmented area of research. Incorporating boardgames into correctional settings can be a complex challenge for correctional stakeholders who seek to identify innovative tools to enhance inmate education and promote integration into society after incarceration. This article outlines our scoping review protocol designed to map and evaluate published and grey literature on the motivational, psychological, and pedagogical considerations involved in the design and use of boardgames as an innovative approach to promoting life skills and well-being among inmates.
Citation: Pensavalle CA, Solinas MG, Gardoni C, Giorgi G, Antognozzi T, Alessio F (2024) Boardgames as an innovative approach to promote life skills and well-being among inmates: A scoping review protocol. PLoS ONE 19(2): e0298728. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298728
Editor: Andrea Cioffi, University of Foggia: Universita degli Studi di Foggia, ITALY
Received: September 19, 2023; Accepted: January 26, 2024; Published: February 29, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Pensavalle et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study, as we are presently in the process of publishing a protocol.
Funding: This work was supported by “Fondo di Ateneo per la Ricerca, 2020”, University of Sassari, Italy. The funders did not and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The terms "Boardgames" or "Table-top Games" currently denote a well-established tradition of games characterized by a defined set of rules and physical components crafted for a specific play experience.
Given the prevailing popularity in the contemporary discourse of the term “digital games”, boardgames are frequently described as "analog games", which means: "those game products that are not usually mediated through computer technologies, but which nevertheless exemplify contemporary cultural forms" [1]. Within this conceptual framework, empirical evidence related to boardgames can be situated alongside other diverse forms of games, such as role-playing games, trading card games, pervasive games, and similar entities.
While the origins of proto-boardgames and game components, such as dice, can be traced back to pre-language civilizations in the Eurasian Middle East and Ancient Egypt [2], it was only in the early 20th century, with the advent of modern industrial production, that boardgames began to achieve widespread commercial availability and recognition as distinct design products. BoardGameGeeks.com presently enumerates over 100,000 distinct board games available today, with descriptions and commentary on up to 130 game mechanics found within known boardgames [3]. In their examination of the relationship between game mechanics and specific forms of play, Samarasinghe et al. [4] emphasized that the contextual dynamics in which the game experience occurs also play a crucial role in determining specific impacts, such as well-being, education, and pro-sociality.
The social dynamics that shape our societies are intricately tied to the inclination of their members toward either prosocial or antisocial behaviors [5,6]. This complex interplay is interwoven with the creative tendencies, experiences, and capabilities of individuals across diverse cultural, economic, and social dimensions [7,8]. While a significant body of experimental literature on games has predominantly focused on digital games and their negative consequences (see Anderson et al., [9], for an extensive meta-analysis), recent investigations highlight the manifold impact of digital games on both antisocial and prosocial behavior, contingent upon contextual nuances [10,11].
Comparable to the predominant focus on digital games, a longstanding tradition among scholars has underscored empirical evidence illuminating the social advantages of analog games, reaching back to the era preceding digital games [12,13]. Booth’s 2019 survey [14], exploring the motivations of boardgame players, emphasizes the substantial role of the socializing aspect as a compelling motivator propelling engagement in gameplay. Specific choices in game design are proposed as potential correlatives [15]. The accumulating body of evidence indicates positive behavioral outcomes associated with boardgame activities in specific contexts and social groups [16].
Kirriemuir and McFarlane’s 2004 literature review [17] reports that through engagement in boardgame activities we can facilitate learning, providing a stimulating experience that capitalizes on the pleasure centers of our brains, enhancing learning abilities. Boardgames are regarded as effective learning tools, encouraging motivation, engagement, and behavior change while fostering understanding of complex systems [18–20]. Unlike digital games, boardgames promote face-to-face interactions with peers, tutors, or therapists, creating opportunities for social interactions and life skills development [21,22]. Recent interest in boardgame design as a problem-solving teaching tool has generated a variety of game design elements, aiming at creating engaging choices for players, and maintaining their involvement in the game activity, such as storytelling, mechanics, and player agency [23–27]. Through debriefing and follow-up discussion, boardgame sessions have the potential to facilitate knowledge transfer and reinforcement. Thereby, promoting well-being and life skills crucial for social reintegration into the complex and ever-changing modern society [28]. Boardgame learning approaches also cultivate creativity and empathy, essential characteristics for navigating intricate systems of relationships and influencing each other’s lives [29–31]. Existing literature on boardgames in therapeutic contexts is extensive [32–44]. They have been employed in therapeutic settings for decades, serving either as a supplementary tool or as a central component also in the counseling process [45–47]. Further research is imperative to assess the effectiveness of boardgames as innovative interventions with positive outcomes in diverse populations, such as inmates. Individuals in confinement, or those with restricted freedom, encounter a multitude of mental and physical health challenges, often stemming from a lack of recreational or cultural activities as well as limited training opportunities [44]. Particularly for juvenile offenders, the learning environment must diverge from conventional schooling, and individuals with special education needs confront additional obstacles in the development of life skills [48–51].
Considering the above-mentioned potentiality of boardgames in generating positive effects on human behaviors, with this manuscript we intend to outline a scoping review protocol for mapping the literature on boardgames as tools for promoting life skills and well-being among inmates. It aims to investigate the motivational, psychological, and pedagogical considerations involved in the design and use of boardgames in incarcerated populations.
Materials and methods
Protocol design
According to Arksey and O’Malley [52], our scoping review consists of six stages: (1) the definition of the research questions and the objectives; (2) the identification of studies; (3) the selection of studies; (4) the extraction of data; (5) the synthesis and dissemination of the results, and (6) the consultation.
Stage one: The definition of the research questions and the objectives
The main research objective is to identify, map, and synthesize the existing empirical literature on the design, use, and impact of boardgames to enhance life skills and well-being among inmates. To achieve this purpose, the following research questions will guide the study:
- What empirical evidence is there on the design and impact of boardgames to improve life skills and well-being among inmates?
- How are the different pedagogical, psychological, and technical factors addressed during the planning of boardgame activities for inmates?
- What policy recommendations do derive from the collected evidence?
Stage two: The identification of studies
Eligibility criteria.
As shown in Table 1, the review follows the Population Concept Context (PCC) framework to delineate the inclusion criteria, and to frame the review questions [53]. The primary search will be conducted on selected electronic databases. Products will be included in the review if they
- are published starting from year 2012.
- are published in Italian, English, or Spanish.
- address boardgames as life skills and well-being tools used among inmates.
- report qualitative and quantitative outcomes and provide an analysis of empirical data on inmates’ life skills and well-being.
The Population (or Participants)/Concept/Context (PCC) framework is recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) to identify the main concepts in primary review questions. The framework gives information about search strategies.
The type of publications that will be included in the review are research articles, evaluation reports, project reports, government reports, book chapters, and conference articles.
Qualitative studies will be also included, and their reference lists will be screened for potential eligible studies.
Information sources.
A three-stage process will be used to search and identify potentially relevant studies. The University librarians will be consulted regarding the following electronic databases: PsycINFO, ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), SciELO, and Education Source, via Ebscohost simultaneously.
Separate searches will also be conducted via JSTOR, Emerald, Science Direct, DOAJ, IEEE Xplore, OECD Library, Springer Link, Taylor & Francis, ACM Digital Library. In addition, searches via Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science will be run to cover additional journals not included within the above database.
The first stage will cover the search of qualitative and quantitative studies published in Italian, English, or Spanish, since January 1st, 2012. Qualitative studies could be an important source of information too, about barriers to the use and design of boardgames, or attitudes, and beliefs about the use of these tools with inmates, all of which could play an important role in the decision-making process.
The second stage will consist of citation mining of documents identified during the primary stage. This includes a manual backward and forward search of references cited in both previous reviews and in studies selected for this review.
The third stage will focus on the identification of grey literature and will be conducted in ProQuest, Google Scholar, and Semantic Scholar.
The search will use the inclusion criteria described before. Two reviewers will independently carry out this process and, if any disagreement arises, it will be resolved via mutual discussion.
Stage three: The selection of studies
The selection of studies will proceed accordingly to PRISMA-ScR guidelines [54] as shown in the following flow-diagram (Fig 1). In the identification stage, the title will be screened for topic relevance. In the screening stage, the abstract will be read only if the title is in line with the objectives of the review. In the eligibility stage, the reviewers, referring to the PCC framework inclusion criteria, will independently read the full text of the studies selected, identifying the records included in the review.
The PRISMA Flow Diagram for the Scoping Review process is a flowchart used to document the sources used in scoping reviews, and the selection and screening processes.
Stage four: The extraction of data
The extracted data will be classified as shown in Fig 2, under the main categories of the Yusoff, et al. conceptual framework [55], adapted to boardgames, to better understand the different approaches used to design, develop, and implement boardgames, and to measure their impact on life skills improvements. This process will be carried out in duplicate by independent reviewers. Any discrepancies will be discussed until agreement will be reached.
The Yusoff Conceptual framework, allows to clearly describe connections among the ideas about the effectiveness of boardgames as innovative interventions tools with positive outcomes and makes apparent the significance of the study.
Stage five: The synthesis, and dissemination of results
In this stage, the inclusion/exclusion pathway will be presented using the flow diagram in Fig 1. An overview table will be created to display information about study characteristics from retrieved documents. This table will display information about location, author, year of publication, title, and sources [56]. Reviewers will discuss and consolidate the results. We will employ a narrative strategy to summarize, and to synthetize the data about the pedagogical, psychological, and technical approaches reported in the documents included.
Stage six: The consultation
According to the Joanna Briggs Institute [57], this step involves a knowledge translation activity, which is a model of collaborative research, where researchers work with knowledge users who identify a problem and have the authority to implement the research recommendations. Therefore, we will collaborate closely with a reference group consisting of relevant stakeholders in the field of Correctional Systems. We will communicate with this group in three main phases: (1) in the search process to obtain input on relevant keywords and grey literature; (2) in the investigation process to ensure knowledge translation and (3) in the end process to inform and discuss interpretation of the findings. The reference group has representatives from different organizations: detention facilities (prison directors, medical staff, and educators), universities (university penitentiary delegates), and voluntary social associations (prison volunteers).
Limitations and implications
There are few limitations that should be mentioned. The study will not take into consideration categorical differentiations on the nature of boardgame activities, (i.e., their cooperative or competitive nature). As it could be hypothesized that different categories of boardgames could have different effects and effectiveness [58]. Future developments could also consider these differences as variables of interest.
Also, the authors are aware of potential limitations due to the heterogeneity of approaches and population’s types of inmates [59]. These factors can all influence the methods applied, the design and development of boardgame activities and the measures to assess their impact on life skills improvement and well-being among inmates.
Discussion
This protocol outlines a clear method for examining the impact of boardgames on life skills and well-being among inmates. The results following this study could guide the direction of future research and furnish educational professionals, game designers, and decision-makers with evidence-based insights to make choices that point out on the opportunity of improving inmate’s communication skills, conflict resolution strategies, emotional intelligence, time management, team building, and motivation through boardgames.
Supporting information
S1 Checklist. PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist: Recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol*.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298728.s001
(PDF)
S2 Checklist. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298728.s002
(PDF)
References
- 1.
Torner E, Trammel A, Leigh E. Reinventing Analog Game Studies: Introductory Manifesto. In: Analog Game Studies I. ETC Press: Pittsburgh; 2016. pp: 1–8.
- 2.
Masukawa K. The origins of board games and ancient game boards. In: Simulation and Gaming in the Network Society, Singapore, Springer; 2016. pp: 3–11.
- 3.
Engelstein G, Shalev I. Building Blocks of Tabletop Game Design: An Encyclopedia of Mechanisms, Milton Park, U.K. Taylor, and Francis Group; 2019.
- 4. Samarasinghe D, Barlow M, Lakshika E, Lynar T, Moustafa N, Townsend T, et al. A Data Driven Review of Board Game Design and Interactions of Their Mechanics. IEEE Access. 2021; 9:114051–114069.
- 5. Nowak MA. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science. 2006 Dec 8;314(5805):1560–3. pmid:17158317
- 6.
Bowles S, Gintis H. A cooperative species. In A Cooperative Species. Princeton University Press; 2011.
- 7.
Pratt AC, Jeffcutt P. editors. Creativity, innovation and the cultural economy. London: Routledge. 2009:119–136. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880012
- 8.
Moran S. The roles of creativity in society. In Kaufman J. C. & Sternberg R. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press; 2010. pp. 74–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763205.006
- 9. Anderson CA, Shibuya A, Ihori N, Swing EL, Bushman BJ, Sakamoto A, et al. Violent Video Game Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin. 2010;136(2):151–173 pmid:20192553
- 10. Greitemeyer T, Osswald S. Effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010;98(2):211–221 pmid:20085396
- 11. Greitemeyer T, Mügge DO. Video Games Do Affect Social Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Violent and Prosocial Video Game Play. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2014 May;40(5):578–89 pmid:24458215
- 12.
Huizinga J. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Beacon Press, Boston. 1955, originally published in 1938.
- 13.
Caillois R. Man, Play and Games. University of Illinois Press; 1958.
- 14.
Booth P. Board Games as Media. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2021.
- 15. Allen A, Appelcline S. Meeples Together: How and Why Cooperative Board Games Work; 2019.
- 16. Pizziol V, Di Paolo R, Bilancini E, Boncinelli L. Dai Game Studies alla Game Science? Possibili evoluzioni della ricerca sul gioco e sul giocare. New Frontiers in Gaming. 2022;2:52–56. ISBN: 978-88-946906-0-6.
- 17. Kirriemuir J, McFarlane A, Report B. Literature review in games and learning. 2004. Available from: https://telearn.hal.science/hal-00190453.
- 18. Admiraal WF, Huizenga J, Akkerman SF, Dam GT. The concept of flow in collaborative game-based learning. Comput Hum Behav. 2011;27(3): 1185–1194
- 19. Hamari J, Shernoff DJ, Rowe E, Coller BD, Asbell-Clarke J, Edwards T. Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;54: 170–179
- 20. Bayeck RY. Examining Board Gameplay and Learning: A Multidisciplinary Review of Recent Research. Simulation & Gaming. 2020;51(4): 411–431
- 21. Barbara J. Measuring User Experience in Multiplayer Board Games. Games and Culture. 2017;12(7–8): 623–649
- 22. Noda S, Shirotsuki K, Nakao M. The Effectiveness of Intervention with Board Games: A systematic Review. BioPsychoSocial Med. 2019;13(22) pmid:31641371
- 23. Akcaoglu M, Koehler MJ. Cognitive outcomes from the Game-Design and Learning (GDL) after-school program. Comput Educ. 2014;75: 72–81
- 24. Ke F. An Implementation of Design-Based Learning through Creating Educational Computer Games: A Case Study on Mathematics Learning during Design and Computing. Comput Educ. 2014;73: 26–39
- 25. Dickey MD. Game Design Narrative for Learning: Appropriating Adventure Game Design Narrative Devices and Techniques for the Design of Interactive Learning Environments. Educational Tech Research Dev. 2006:54(3): 245–263
- 26. Sung H, Hwang G. A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students’ learning performance in science courses. Comput Educ. 2013;63: 43–51
- 27. Kafai YB, Burke Q. Constructionist Gaming: Understanding the Benefits of Making Games for Learning. Educ Psychol. 2015 Oct 2;50(4):313–334 pmid:27019536
- 28. Asakawa T, Gilbert N. Synthesizing experiences: Lessons to be learned from Internet-mediated simulation games. Simulation & Gaming. 2003;34 (1): 10–22
- 29. Kao GY, Chiang C, Sun C. Customizing scaffolds for game-based learning in physics: Impacts on knowledge acquisition and game design creativity. Comput Educ. 2017;113: 294–312
- 30. Duncan K.J. Examining the Effects of Immersive Game-Based Learning on Student Engagement and the Development of Collaboration, Communication, Creativity and Critical Thinking. TechTrends. 2020;64: 514–524
- 31. Hudnall JA, Kopecky KE. The Empathy Project: A Skills-Development Game: Innovations in Empathy Development. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020 Jul;60(1):164–169.e3 pmid:32119902
- 32. Wilde J. The Effects of the Let’s Get Rational Board Game on Rational Thinking, Depression, and Self-Acceptance in Adolescents. J Ration Cogn Ther. 1994;12: 189–196
- 33. Bochennek K, Wittekindt B, Zimmermann SY, Klingebiel T. More than mere games: A review of card and board games for medical education. Med Teach. 2007 Nov;29(9):941–8 pmid:18158669
- 34. Kim SH, Han DH, Lee YS, Kim BN, Cheong JH, Han SH. Baduk (the Game of Go) Improved Cognitive Function and Brain Activity in Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Psychiatry Investig. 2014 Apr;11(2):143–51 pmid:24843369
- 35. Barzegar K, Barzegar S. Chess therapy: A new approach to curing panic attacks. Asian J Psychiatr 2017 Dec;30:118–119 pmid:28892744
- 36. Lin Q, Cao Y, Gao J. The impacts of a GO-game (Chinese chess) intervention on Alzheimer disease in a Northeast Chinese population. Front Aging Neurosci. 2015 Aug 25;7:163 pmid:26379544
- 37. Akl EA, Kairouz VF, Sackett KM, Erdley WS, Mustafa RA, Fiander M, et al. Educational games for health professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Mar 28;2013(3):CD006411 pmid:23543543
- 38. Brar G, Lambert S, Huang S, Dang R, Chan TM. Using Observation to Determine Teachable Moments Within a Serious Game: A GridlockED as Medical Education (GAME) Study. AEM Educ Train. 2020 May 23;5(2):e10456 pmid:33796804
- 39. Lavender T, Omoni G, Laisser R, McGowan L, Wakasiaka S, Maclean G, et al. Evaluation of an educational board game to improve use of the partograph in sub-Saharan Africa: A quasi-experimental study. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2019 Jun; 20:54–59 pmid:31084819
- 40. Akl EA, Pretorius RW, Sackett K, Erdley WS, Bhoopathi PS, Alfarah Z, et al. The effect of educational games on medical students’ learning outcomes: a systematic review: BEME Guide No 14. Med Teach. 2010 Jan;32(1): 16–27 pmid:20095770
- 41. Nakao M. Special series on “effects of board games on health education and promotion” board games as a promising tool for health promotion: a review of recent literature. BioPsychoSocial Med. 2019; 13(5) pmid:30820242
- 42. Squire KD. Video Games and Education: Designing Learning Systems for an Interactive Age. Educational Technology. 2008;48(2): 17–26. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/44429558.
- 43. Yuna HW. How Can Gaming Help Test Your Theory? TheRANDBlog. 2016 May 18. Available from: https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/05/how-can-gaming-help-test-your-theory.html.
- 44.
Report to the Italian Government on the visit to Italy carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 12 to 22 March 2019. Council of Europe. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/16809986b4.
- 45.
Swank J. M., Weaver J. L. Therapeutic Use of Board Games with Children. In Kaduson H. G. & Schaefer C. E.(Eds.). Play therapy with children: Modalities for change American Psychological Association. 2021. pp: 209–223 https://doi.org/10.1037/0000217-01
- 46. Bratton SC, Ray D, Rhine T, Jones L. The Efficacy of Play Therapy with Children: A Meta-Analytic Review of Treatment Outcomes. Prof Psychol Res Pract. 2005; 36:376–390
- 47. Nickerson ET O’Laughlin KB. It’s fun—but will it work?: The use of games as a therapeutic medium for children and adolescents. J Clin Child Psychol. 1980; 9(1):78–81
- 48. Jonassen D.H. Toward a design theory of problem solving. ETR&D 2000;48: 63–85
- 49. Scribner S, Cole M. Cognitive Consequences of Formal and Informal Education. Science 1973 Nov 9; 182(4112):553–559.
- 50.
Friend M, Cook L. Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals, 9th ed.; Pearson. 2020.
- 51.
Smith TEC, Polloway EA, Patton JR, Dowdy CA. Teaching Students with Special Needs in Inclusive Settings, 7th, Edition, Prentice Hall, London; 2015. pp: 592.
- 52. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32
- 53.
Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12
- 54. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467–473 pmid:30178033
- 55. Yusoff A, Crowder RM, Gilbert L, Wills GB. A Conceptual Framework for Serious Games. Ninth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies; 2009. pp: 21–23.
- 56.
Card NA. Applied meta-analysis for social science research. Guilford Press, New York; 2012.
- 57. Aromataris E, Munn Z. (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global.
- 58. Nakao M. Special series on “effects of board games on health education and promotion” board games as a promising tool for health promotion: a review of recent literature. BioPsychoSocial Med. 2019;13(5) pmid:30820242
- 59.
Martin MD, Kaledas RJ. Tools for Managing Inmate Behavior. U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Corrections. June 2010. Available from: https://info.nicic.gov/nicrp/system/files/024368.pdf.