During our second week, the SoKids team shifted from early ideation into a deeper phase of research, analysis, and framing. Rather than rushing toward a prototype, we focused on understanding what kind of game we should be making, and just as importantly, what we should not be making.
Our work this week centered on three parallel tracks: developing our transformational framework, analyzing existing game-based research tools, and grounding our design in developmental psychology and children’s rights.
Building the Transformational Framework
A major milestone this week was drafting the first version of our transformational framework. Unlike many games at the ETC that aim to transform the player, our project raised an important tension:
What does “transformation” mean when the goal is assessment rather than behavior change?
Through discussion and writing, we clarified that our game should not attempt to teach, persuade, or correct children’s beliefs. Instead, the transformation we aim for is at the research level—transforming how early social cognition can be studied by replacing costly, one-on-one interviews with a scalable, low-pressure, play-based tool.
This framing helped us make early design commitments:
- The game must function as an assessment, not an intervention
- Players should never be rewarded or punished for social choices
- Narrative and play should reduce test anxiety rather than introduce new beliefs
Analyzing Existing Games and Research Tools
We also spent time analyzing previous transformational and research-driven games, including projects designed for preschool-aged children. We looked closely at how these games:
- Structured choice systems
- Framed social roles and characters
- Balanced playfulness with data collection
- Minimized adult influence during play
One key insight was that explicit questioning (e.g., asking children directly what they think or believe) often produces unreliable results due to language limitations and social desirability effects. In contrast, implicit interaction design—such as observing where children move, who they approach, and how long they linger—can reveal patterns that are harder to access through words alone.
This reinforced our direction toward indirect, behavior-based signals rather than verbal self-report.
Research Review: Learning from Prior TGDS Prototypes & Reading List
During Week 2, we focused on analyzing previous TGDS (Transformational Game Design Studio) prototypes to better understand how game mechanics can function as research instruments when working with preschool-aged children.
We closely examined projects such as Super Storybook, Fairytale Playtime, The Big Birthday Bash, The Enchanted School Bus, and NeighborWho. Across these examples, we identified recurring design tensions between playfulness, interpretability, and ethical responsibility.
Several key insights emerged:
- Behavior does not automatically equal social category cognition.
Role assignment, resource distribution, and spatial placement can signal preference, but they may also reflect convenience, visual salience, sequencing effects, or narrative framing rather than racial perception alone. - Structure reshapes behavior.
Layout position, visual uniformity, facilitator tone, and task sequencing significantly influence children’s decisions. Design constraints are methodological choices, not neutral scaffolding. - Cognitive load must be tightly controlled.
Long narratives and multi-variable screens led to random clicking or memory loss in prior prototypes. Short, modular interaction phases produced more reliable behavioral signals. - Facilitators are part of the system.
Adult presence, phrasing, and timing shaped children’s responses, reinforcing the need to design both the game and the research protocol simultaneously.
These analyses sharpened our understanding of a central challenge: how to design interactions that are playful and developmentally appropriate while still producing interpretable data. Rather than assuming that implicit gameplay automatically generates valid insight, we recognized the need for clearer alignment between mechanics, measured constructs, and ethical intent.
Week 2 ultimately shifted our thinking from “designing a fun assessment game” to “designing a structured behavioral measurement system embedded within play.”
Children’s Rights and Ethical Foundations
Finally, we examined the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child alongside research ethics frameworks such as the Belmont Report. This pushed us to think beyond IRB compliance and ask broader design questions:
- Are children participating voluntarily and with agency?
- Does the game respect their right not to explain or justify choices?
- Could the game unintentionally introduce ideas children did not previously hold?
This lens helped us frame ethics as an active design responsibility, not just a regulatory checkbox.
Looking Ahead
By the end of Week 2, we had:
- A clear transformational framing for the project
- Strong research justification for implicit, game-based assessment
- Early ethical guardrails guiding future design decisions