Learning and Reflecting Upon Ethical Frameworks Through Narrative Game Design

This paper shares an educational intervention employed in an undergraduate ethics course at a Northeastern United States regional university in which students were tasked with crafting digital interactive narrative games inspired by three ethical frameworks. Prior studies have demonstrated how engaging in game design may foster identity exploration (Schrier, 2019), reinforce knowledge through contextualization and practice (An, 2016), and hone project management and problem-solving abilities (Alexander & Ho, 2015). While existing literature highlights the efficacy of digital games in teaching ethics (Schrier, 2021) and practicing ethical decision-making skills (da Silva, 2021), the use of game design as a means to understanding and applying ethical frameworks remains an uncharted research domain. For this study, we conjectured that developing a game with a narrative focus in a user-friendly tool for text-based game creation would allow undergraduate learners to better understand ethical frameworks in context. We also aimed to assess whether the game design activity would impact their ethical decision-making perspectives. We conducted a mixed-method, qualitative-focused study with 16 participants to investigate if game design practices could facilitate reflection on three ethical frameworks: Kantian, Utilitarian, and Virtue Ethics.

This paper is organized as follows. First, we present an overview of the relevant literature on i) design-based learning, including its characteristics and reported effectiveness, ii) harnessing game design as an effective educational tool for subjects and skills, including ethics and ethical thinking; and iii) learning ethics and ethical frameworks through contextualized practice. Our methodology, findings, and analysis are then discussed, alongside recommendations for educators who want to integrate games and game design into their ethics course curriculum.

Design-based Learning

Design-based learning (DBL) emphasizes the integration of design practices into the learning process by engaging students in hands-on projects where they apply design thinking. This approach is rooted in the belief that engaging in design activities can foster deeper understanding, bridge the gap between theory and practical application, and enhance creativity (Doppelt, 2009; Gómez Puente et al., 2011). DBL encourages students to solve real-world problems, exercising problem-solving skills, self-assessment, and reflection (Ke, 2014; Lee & Breitenberg, 2010; Matere et al., 2023).

DBL has been suggested to be effective in different subject matter areas, such as engineering (Weng et al., 2023) and computational thinking (Jun et al., 2017; Li et al., 2023). For example, Weng et al. (2023) investigated the use of DBL to promote deep learning in the context of a postgraduate course on engineering design. The analysis of qualitative and quantitative data illustrates the higher efficacy of the DBL approach in a comparison between the experimental (DBL) and control groups. Students in the experimental group emphasized that the activity was challenging but led to a meaningful experience where knowledge could be applied to solve problems. Similarly, Jun et al.’s (2017) investigation on the use of DBL to improve elementary school students’ computational thinking skills also highlights more significant learning benefits in a DBL approach compared to a control group. Students’ self-interest, self-efficacy, and understanding of computers as tools that can be used for creative purposes can also be improved in DBL interventions (Jun et al., 2017; Li, et al., 2023) experimental study that included DBL implementation to teach computational thinking to fourth graders further indicates that this approach can contribute to students’ self-perceived skills.

Though its effectiveness has been observed and documented, instructors should be mindful of potential issues that might arise from a DBL experience. Particularly relevant to this study is the possibility that the complexity or accuracy of content knowledge might not be represented or reflected in the design (Ke, 2014). This issue can be addressed with the understanding and application of the role of the instructor as a facilitator who provides support and just-in-time guidance throughout the design (Matere et al., 2023) as well as by assessing the alignment between the content learning goals with the capabilities of tools used (Bekker et al., 2015). In the future, there is a need for more nuanced understanding and support mechanisms to ensure its effective implementation in diverse educational contexts, such as in a university-level ethics course, which we address in this study.

Teaching and Learning Through Game Design

Engaging students in game design has been used as an instructional approach within different educational contexts. Creating games within an organized curriculum is effective, for instance, in helping learners understand how systems work (Akcaoglu & Green, 2019), improving empathy and perspective-taking (e.g. Schrier, 2019; Thumlert et al., 2018), and fostering literacy skills (Owston et al., 2009) and creativity (Fabricatore & López, 2013; Marone, 2016).

Games are systems with rules, feedback loops, and player interactions (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). Given the complexity of games, game design is an intricate task that requires balancing and understanding various elements to create a cohesive experience. This process hones students' abilities to tackle complex problems to which nuanced design solutions need to be applied. By designing games, for instance, students can gain a deeper understanding of how systems work, as evidenced by Akcaoglu and Green’s (2019) results following a game design course aimed at fostering middle school students’ system thinking skills. Through making games, learners are encouraged to reflect upon complex systems and issues like climate change or immigration and think about such issues in terms of a web of short-term and longer-term consequences, rather than just cause and effect (Schrier, 2021).

Game creation is an active learning process (Yang & Chang, 2013). During game design, students are not just passive recipients of information; they are actively engaged in crafting systems, applying their understanding of content knowledge, and exercising creativity and critical thinking when faced with challenges throughout development. When game design experiences are designed to include teamwork, students can also learn from each other and have their points of view and understanding challenged by peers (Fabricatore & López, 2013).

Narratives may also be part of a game’s design, engaging players and allowing them to experience perspectives other than their own (Hilliard et al., 2018; Schrier, 2021). Creating games with a narrative component often requires consideration of diverse ways of being to design complex characters and game worlds (Dishon & Kafai, 2020).

Learning Ethics Through Design and Other Contextualized Practice

Previous studies indicate that teaching ethics using practical and creative approaches is beneficial in fostering an understanding of ethical frameworks and putting ethical decision-making and argumentation into context (e.g., Greenhalgh, 2016; Hulbert, 2015; Kirkman et al., 2017; Perry & Robichaud, 2020). Greenhalgh’s (2016) study in an undergraduate context indicates that using analog, tabletop games in an educational setting can contribute to the learning of ethics and lead to shifts in perspective through reflection. Moreover, Perry and Robichaud (2020) discuss how simulations could be used to complement traditional classroom learning in ethics education and political theory as they "invite students to make morally charged decisions under realistic and sometimes stressful conditions" (p. 228). The authors argue that employing ethical simulations in instruction can help students in developing moral judgment in a low-stakes environment. Inspired by game design principles, Perry and Robichaud (2020) discuss guidelines for designing ethical simulations, such as focusing on decision-making, incorporating chance and randomization, and employing feedback loops.

Design-based approaches can also benefit ethics learning and ethical reflection (Hulbert, 2015; Kirkman et al., 2017). Kirkman et al. (2017) discuss an intervention involving a design-focused, collaborative, project-based, problem-based design ethics course for Engineering and Industrial Design students. The researchers investigated how knowledge of ethics could be improved in the context of this approach. Data collected for this investigation included self-reported information and pre and post intervention assessments. The results of this study indicate that the course helped students recognize the importance of considering ethics in design. The contextualization of ethics is also a benefit of Hulbert’s (2015) arts-based pedagogy, the Better World Theatre. In this approach, students use specific ethical decision-making frameworks to address problems inspired by real-life occurrences in the design and performance of a theater play. Student performance is followed by a conversation with the audience about ethical issues addressed in the play itself. Better World Theatre was implemented in several contexts, such as honors and nursing courses as well as faith development.

In the context of game design, recent studies on tabletop game-making indicate that this approach can be beneficial for the exploration and learning of ethics (Gkouskos et al., 2023; Hylving et al., 2023). Hylving et al. (2023) study applied the Design Games Framework (DGF), in which learners first play an existing game, modify some of its elements, and then create a new game based on a topic established by the instructor. The results of a year-long intervention in which the DGF was applied in the context of international graduate education indicate that learners were able to acquire content-related knowledge and contextualize it in a game focused on ethical issues related to data sharing and privacy. Hylving et al. (2023) also discusses that this experience also led participants to reflect upon their own data sharing and privacy practices. In a design ethics course, Gkouskos et al. (2023) used DGF in addition to the theoretical framing Research through Design (RtD) to contextualize and foster reflection of ethics-related problems, finding that the practice frameworks helped students in understanding and breaking down complex problems.

Twine 2.0 in Instruction

Twine 2.0 (hereafter Twine), is an accessible and flexible free open-source tool for interactive storytelling. Twine’s design prioritizes minimizes technical barriers and allows educators and students without programming backgrounds to create digital narratives (Friedhoff, 2013). This low learning curve has led to Twine’s adoption in pedagogical settings, from higher education to after-school programs, where it has been used to foster creativity, digital literacy, and personal expression (Clark & Baxter, 2018; Thompson, 2020; Tran, 2016). Thompson (2020), for instance, used Twine to teach forensic science, where students engaged with non-linear case narratives to improve understanding of investigative processes. Clark and Baxter (2018) found that undergraduate microbiology students effectively integrated scientific concepts into Twine-based games, reinforcing disciplinary knowledge and increasing students’ confidence in their creative game design skills. These findings align with Tran’s (2016) study of middle school girls which emphasized Twine’s potential role in developing computational fluency and digital literacies. Moreover, Tran’s (2016) workshop on game-making using Twine allowed participants to exercise their creativity and create interactive stories that inspired by real and fantastic settings.

Twine has also been explored as an assessment and reflective practice tool. In an examination of Twine game jams in university courses on digital storytelling, Roine et al. (2021) found that the design process encouraged students to apply theoretical concepts creatively while offering instructors insight into student learning. This aligns with broader frameworks in serious game design, which argue for the importance of linking learning mechanics to game mechanics to maximize educational impact (Arnab et al., 2015). Twine’s integration of narrative and interactivity allows for such connections, providing students with opportunities for meaning-making, while enabling instructors to evaluate learning outcomes through creative production.

Overview of Instruction

This study was conducted in an undergraduate ethics course and involved a game design activity. For the assignment in which data was collected, over three weeks before the design activity, students were introduced to three ethical frameworks, namely: Utilitarianism, which suggests that the right action is the one that maximizes happiness or minimizes suffering for the greatest number of people (the greatest good for the greatest number); Kantian Ethics, which deems actions as morally right if they are done according to a universal moral law or duty, regardless of the consequences; and Virtue Ethics, which focuses on cultivating virtuous character traits, such as courage, honesty, and compassion, and emphasizes living a morally good life by consistently embodying these virtues. Instruction also included Hedonism, which was not provided as an option for the game design activity.

During the three weeks, the instructor provided an in-depth overview of each framework’s tenets and related philosophers and perspectives. The instructor also led discussions (with students) about the strengths and weaknesses of each framework. Each week, students also worked in pairs or groups in shorter non-design exercises to help them apply frameworks to game design. For instance, they played digital games that can foster ethical reflection such as Papers, Please (Pope, 2013), which places learners in the role of a customs officer who interacts with immigrants trying to gain entry into the fictional nation of Arstotzka, and SweatShop (LittleLoud, 2011), in which players manage workers in a factory, discussed the games’ goals and mechanics, and shared how each ethical framework might be applied to each game. Before students started their individual game design processes, the instructor provided introductory instruction on Twine, and coached students on the creation of a short game to demonstrate the main features of the development tool. As students worked individually, the instructor was available to help students address technical challenges and answer questions related to the game design assignment. Students’ submitted games were graded, for the purposes of the class, according to a rubric that judged games based on playability, originality, effort, level of engagement, relevance to theme and constraints, and incorporation of feedback provided by playtesters.

Choice of Tool

We decided to use Twine as the tool for the design activity in the ethics course. We had previously reviewed different digital game creation tools that have been used in instruction, such as Construct 3, GameMaker, RPG Maker, Unreal Engine, and Unity (Gajewski et al., 2022). However, we decided to use Twine because of its ability to easily create digital narrative-based games.

Twine provides an opportunity for game designers to create interactive text-based games without coding. Its interface includes a grid view where story nodes, or Passages, appear as draggable boxes connected by links. Upon creating or clicking on a Passage, users have access to a Passage editor, a simple text editor where they can develop a narrative, add choices, and insert code elements such as variables and conditionals for enhanced interactivity (Fig. 1).

The game creation process in Twine begins with creating a new story, followed by adding passages that represent scenes or decision points. After developing the story structure, users must test and debug their game using Twine’s built-in playtesting feature. Once complete, the game can be published as an HTML file that can be easily shared and hosted online so others can play it, making decisions as a narrative unfolds (Fig. 2).

Design Activity

To participate in the design activity, which is the focus of the study, students were required to individually develop short games where they could display their understanding of an ethical framework of their choosing. They were told to apply principles related to Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, or Virtue Ethics in some way in the game. The framework could be applied in how players play the game (in that there would be choices that might relate to an ethical framework), in the themes, overall narrative, or embodied in a character. Pre-design activity instruction also included guidance related to the development tool Twine.

In addition to the game itself, students were tasked with creating a reflection essay explaining their design approach and how their game design reflects the chosen framework. This supporting document served to externalize their thought process and reflect upon their design decisions. After an initial game prototype was created, students playtested each other’s games. Playtesting is a process that allows game designers and design teams to receive targeted feedback in a structured manner (Denham, 2016). This was included as a requirement of the project to allow learners to understand the reception of their design by potential players and receive crucial feedback related to, for instance, its strengths and weaknesses in terms of story and other components, which could guide continuous development. Playtesting was also used as peer-to-peer formative assessment as part of our design-based learning approach adopted in instruction (Gómez Puente et al., 2011). Though the nature of feedback varied, students primarily offered feedback on narrative aspects such as story structure and endings, and functional elements, indicating, for instance, dead ends or bugs.

Research Questions

We investigated the following research questions:

1. (A)

   What framework(s) did the student apply in their game’s design?

2. (B)

   How did their definition of ethics change from before and after the intervention, if at all?

3. (C)

   What did the researchers observe that the students learned (or did not learn) through the game design activity and their externalization of knowledge?

Research Protocol

While all students in the course participated in the graded assignment, only sixteen out of 25 total class participants agreed to be part of this optional study. The sixteen participants who volunteered for the study participated in a pre- and post-activity survey, along with a short interview after submitting their game. They also wrote a short reflection about what they designed, why they designed it, and how it relates to their chosen ethical framework.

The pre- and post-intervention survey included the students' attitudes toward learning about ethics and games, their confidence in understanding ethics and game design, their definitions of ethics and the three ethical frameworks, their familiarity with Twine 2.0, and demographic information. In both surveys, students were also presented with two ethical scenarios and asked how they would respond to them. These scenarios were developed by the instructor (Schrier) to elicit ethical thinking processes based on a prior research on ethics (Schrier, 2014). The scenarios presented to students were the following:

1. (1)

   Jorge has two tickets to a concert, but he knows two of his friends want to go to the show. If you were Jorge, what would you do? How would you decide what to do?

2. (2)

   Sarita is taking a test for class, but during it, she can see someone else looking up the answers on their phone. The test is not open book. The next week, the professor asks Sarita if she saw anyone cheating on the test. If you were Sarita, what would you do? How would you decide what to do?

The post-intervention survey further inquired about the game they created, the ethical framework they employed, how the game reflected the chosen framework, and their suggestions for improving the assignment's effectiveness in teaching ethics.

The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with the participants after the post-intervention survey. These interviews delved deeper into the concept behind their game, its relationship to the chosen ethical framework, reasons for selecting that framework, and their reflections on what they did or did not learn during the assignment. Furthermore, though we did not perform robust analyses of participants’ created games, we played the games to triangulate findings related to game characteristics and design choices discussed by participants in other data (Table 1).

Coding and Data Analysis

Students’ confidence in their knowledge about ethics, based on self-reported data from pre and post surveys, was measured with a paired samples t-test. These quantitative analyses were included primarily to provide descriptive context rather than to form the central basis of analysis. Given our small sample size (n = 16), more advanced statistical analyses would not have been methodologically robust or meaningful, as they would lack the power to detect significant effects with confidence. A qualitative, inductive approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was employed to analyze the remaining data from surveys, interviews, and reflections. Initially, themes were identified in 10% of the data, leading to the creation of an initial set of codes. The codes were then compared and revised in discussions between the researchers. These discussions helped us identify discrepancies in our initial interpretations and clarify ambiguous codes to ensure that the codebook was comprehensive for the rest of the data (Joffe, 2011). The remaining data was then individually coded, and our codes were compared in subsequent discussions to ensure 100% agreement. Finally, themes were identified by grouping relevant codes and code groups. Table 2 illustrates sample codes, associated code groups, the number of participants associated with codes, and the overarching themes associated with these codes.

Ethical Considerations

We adhered to ethical research standards throughout the research process to ensure all participants' safety, rights, and dignity. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) (#S22-025) at the university. All participants were informed about the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits, in addition to its voluntary nature, during the consent process.

Informed consent was obtained in writing from each participant before data collection began. All identifying information was removed from the data set, and pseudonyms were used during analysis and reporting to protect participant privacy. Data and Twine game .html files were stored securely on password-protected servers accessible only to the research team. Additionally, participants were reassured that their responses would be used solely for academic purposes and that the anonymized findings might be shared in scholarly publications. Finally, we, the researchers, also provided appropriate support by offering additional information and resources should any participant experience discomfort when discussing ethical issues.

Results that pertain to each of our research questions are presented in the sub-sections below.

What Framework(s) Did the Student Apply in Their Game’s Design?

Two participants centered their game design on the virtue ethics framework, and two others applied Kantian ethics to their designs. One participant (199) included elements from all three frameworks in their game. Most participants, however, (n = 11) chose to apply the utilitarian framework in their game design. Participant 205’s game, for example, required players to decide when to release a world-changing invention, considering potential impacts on society and potential financial impacts of the timeliness of the release of such an invention. Participant 674’s game places players in the role of a medical doctor who needs to decide which patients to treat based on a Utilitarian perspective. The predominance of utilitarianism in participants’ game design aligns with the prevalence of binary moral systems historically represented in games (Heron & Belford, 2014; Sicart, 2013), in addition to Twine’s affordances, which encourages designers to make a branching choice-based game where players can choose one path or another, without a nuanced in-between. These design affordances seemed to encourage all students to organize their games around player choices that lead to immediate or delayed consequences.

How Did Their Definition of Ethics Change From Before and After the Intervention?

Students’ definitions of ethics did not change because of this experience. Most participants (n = 13) included morality in their definitions of ethics, both before and after the intervention. Participant 932 defines ethics as "Morals that dictate your actions", for instance, while 155 states that ethics is "A moral set of goals one tries to abide by". In some cases, the game design experience helped participants better understand and define the ethical frameworks selected for the game design activity. The pre and post-survey results show that five participants who provided incorrect definitions of virtue ethics provided correct answers in the post-test. Furthermore, three participants provided an accurate definition of Kantian ethics in their post-test after not defining this framework adequately in the pre-test. Even though most participants created their games around utilitarianism, no qualitatively different descriptions were identified between participants’ pre and post-test definitions of this framework, with seven students providing correct definitions in both tests.

What Did the Researchers Observe That the Students Learned (or Did Not Learn) Through the Game Design Activity and Their Externalization of Knowledge?

The data suggests that the game design intervention did not lead to improved confidence in ethics knowledge or recall of ethical framework components. There was a minor decrease, though not significant (p = 0.200), in the reported understanding of ethics based on a scale from 1 to 10 from the pre (M = 7.44, SD = 1.59) compared to the post-test (M = 6.63, SD = 1.82). Furthermore, the activity did not lead to changes in ethical decision-making approaches, as only two students (155 and 532) provided different responses to ethical scenarios across pre and post-tests. Most participants (n = 14) proposed alternative solutions to the first ethical dilemma presented. Participant 24 states: "I'd give them my tickets, because I honestly don't care about concerts.". Participant 898 said they would "Try finding a way to buy another ticket, or don't go at all". When responding to the second dilemma, most students’ responses indicated that they would not report a cheating classmate: "I would gain nothing from having my friends fail so likely I’d say nothing" (Participant 71).

Some participants (n = 6) did, however, report having achieved a better understanding and application of the chosen ethical frameworks when reflecting upon the experience in the post-test and write-ups. Participant 49, who created a game around utilitarianism, discussed their acknowledgment of multiple ethical standpoints following the experience, "I feel like I have learned more about the wide spectrum of what people's ethics can be and how they differ from mine." Participant 987 emphasized the importance of knowing the framework itself before implementing it in a design in their statement: "I had to understand more about Virtue Ethics since I applied it to my game." Additionally, participant 205 mentioned that the activity provided an opportunity to contextualize ethics: "I learned how ethics could be practically applied in real-life scenarios and how it may be taught in an artistic medium, like video games."

Designing a Twine game based on an ethical framework also allowed a small number of participants (n = 3) to disrupt potential players’ expectations. For instance, one participant designed a utilitarian game in which saving the character expected to contribute the most to society (a future doctor) paradoxically resulted in her abandoning her career, while saving another character led her to pursue medicine. Such disruptions subverted players’ anticipations of a straightforward utilitarian logic, highlighting the unpredictability and complexity of ethical decision-making:

If you picked, like, the pregnant woman... she ended up being inspired and going into the medical field, but if you pick the person who is predicted to be a medical professional, she ended up giving up on her career because she was inspired by... being saved. So, it was... not what you expected (674)

In addition to contextualizing the chosen ethical frameworks, the students self-reported that the game design experience helped them to recognize the complexity of ethical decision-making. This complexity was communicated through participants’ designs with the inclusion, for instance, of narratives set in professional, educational, healthcare, and other fictional settings, multiple endings, ethical dilemmas, and possibilities for perspective-taking. Participant 199 described the ethical dilemma included in their game: "So there's no possible scenario where you can save yourself and the greatest amount (sic) of people. It's either you have to sacrifice yourself and everybody gets to live, or everybody will die. Except for you." Additionally, 414’s game included perspective-taking and multiple endings: "...how the player would act in a given situation as the CEO of a large company. The actions of the player are tested against utilitarianism to determine the ending the player receives." That said, though the survey part of the study did not yield positive significant results regarding improved conceptual understanding of ethical frameworks, participants were able to contextualize and design complex narrative-based systems through games based on their knowledge and understanding of such frameworks.

This section presents a discussion of our findings, and relates our results to previous research. Changes in students’ reported confidence in ethical knowledge and decision-making across the pre- and post-intervention surveys are examined, followed by an analysis of the ethical frameworks most commonly applied in their game designs. We then highlighted themes that emerged from qualitative data, including students’ deepened contextual understanding of ethical frameworks, their use of systems thinking in game design, and their critical reflections on the strengths and limitations of the frameworks themselves.

Students did not report greater confidence or a change in their ethical decision-making process, at least directionally

Contrasting with Li et al.’s ((Li, et al., 2023) findings regarding improved self-perceived knowledge and skills in DBL approaches, our participants did not report an increased confidence in their knowledge of ethics. This finding might relate to how the activity was designed and implemented. The purpose of the design intervention was to help students embody and inhabit the frameworks and not necessarily to follow them. Thus, this type of instruction may not be sufficient in helping students to follow and use a framework in a particular dilemma, which echoes previously identified potential issues with DBL approaches in regard to content accuracy (Ke, 2014). These learning objectives might require further instruction that involves giving the student practice dilemmas, feedback on how they approach them, and opportunities for reflection. It might also not have been a long enough intervention to make an impact on how a person approaches ethical dilemmas. Furthermore, this negative finding might also relate to the limitations in the use of self-reported data in assessment for ethics learning (Kirkman et al., 2017). It might also relate to the fact that students might not have connected their growing knowledge of ethics to their ability to incorporate it into a game.

Students Reported a Deeper Understanding of the Ethical Frameworks and the Ability to Apply them to Real-Life Contexts

Eleven students designed games that contextualized decision-making in narratives that were based on authentic settings, inspired by real life, or by fantastical worlds. This thematic versatility in game-making with Twine aligns with Tran’s (2016) findings and highlights the flexibility of this development tool for creative expression. Moreover, the process of applying the framework and setting it in a game context helped students to reflect upon their chosen framework and its complexities. The benefit of contextualization in design, in this study, reinforces the positive effects of learning ethics in contextualized practice found in previous research (e.g., Hulbert, 2015; Kirkman et al., 2017; Perry & Robichaud, 2020). These students’ games demonstrated a close connection between ethical framework and narrative structure, which shows that the design choices reflected the moral principles from the frameworks. This aligns with Perry and Robichaud’s design guidelines (2020), which explains the "golden rule" (p. 229) of aligning theme with game mechanics (Fig. 3).

The Design Activity Helped Students Practice Systems Thinking

Systems thinking is the ability to think about problems in a holistic way, and to understand a complex web of interactions, consequences, and dynamic factors that affect an issue (Hmelo et al., 2000). Based on our analysis of the surveys, interviews, and reflection papers, most students were able to think not just about applying the framework, but how it might function within a game system where components are interconnected and players’ choices have immediate or long-term consequences with ethical significance (Perry & Robichaud, 2020). In Participant 24’s game, for example, players reach a less-than-ideal ending where many virtual lives are lost if players make empathy-based decisions related to in-game characters. This finding also reinforces Akcaoglu and Green’s (2019) argument that user-friendly game design tools can allow students to establish connections between content and contextual variables in the process of designing and developing complex game systems (Fig. 4).

Two students were also able to express critiques of the framework (a meta-narrative about the framework itself) through the game.

Our results also provide an instructive contrast with Hulbert’s (2015) "Better World Theatre," an arts-based pedagogical approach that led to reported gains in empathy and moral judgment. Like Hulbert’s work, our intervention engaged students in a creative, contextualized practice where ethical frameworks were embodied and applied to realistic or fictional scenarios. However, while theatre exercises rely on role-play to evoke empathy, our approach uses digital game design as a means of externalizing and experimenting with ethical frameworks. By designing with the framework in their games, some students also wanted to expose its flaws and show its weaknesses. In other words, these students were approaching the frameworks not just as learners, but as reflective practitioners. The students' design work also sometimes incorporated"randomization devices" (Perry & Robichaud, 2020, p. 231) or random "dice rolls" or random events in the game that add uncertainty to potential outcomes, such as in Participant 674’s game (see Fig. 5).

Thus, the students' game designs externalized the students’ thought processes around ethics and suggested that students were able to practice metacognition (thinking about their thinking) through design. Students practiced reflection-on-games (Majgaard, 2014), not only in evaluating their own design processes after the artifact had been created, but also through the games themselves, in how their games communicated ethical dilemmas to potential players. For instance, some participants noted that their games might mislead or frustrate players if outcomes did not align with expectations, prompting them to reconsider the limits of utilitarian, Virtue Ethics, or Kantian reasoning. As a result, their creations were not only a reflection of their understanding, but artifacts that encourage reflection, or objects-to-think-with, for future players (Holbert & Wilensky, 2019).

All in all, using Twine in a game design activity helped students to engage in ethical complexity (Woermann & Cilliers, 2012) and learn, reflect upon, and apply frameworks (Doppelt, 2009; Gómez Puente et al., 2011). However, though the design activity helped to advance learners’ knowledge of ethical frameworks in context, we recommend adding additional classroom activities around the game design activity. This will help to enhance improvement in conceptual understanding and recall, as well as student self-efficacy around ethical knowledge.

In this study, participants engaged in a design activity related to one of three ethical frameworks (Kantian, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics). Sixteen undergraduate students created games in Twine to demonstrate an application of at least one of the three frameworks. They also participated in pre- and post-design activity surveys, a reflection paper, and a short interview. They were asked to explain their game designs and rationale for their designs. Based on an analysis of these components, students did not change in terms of their overall self-reported confidence in using these frameworks to approach a dilemma, at least directionally. However, their game designs and reflections suggested that they were able to systemically understand and contextualize the ethical frameworks and, in a few cases, recognize and demonstrate the problems that can emerge when applying them.

These results suggest that a multifaceted approach to ethics education is necessary. While more traditional instruction (lectures, readings) might help students initially grasp framework definitions and their unique qualities, applying the frameworks through game design might help students to grapple further with their complexity. Game design enabled students to not just learn, but to teach through design. This approach helped them to play with an ethical framework in a way that externalized their understanding of its flaws and strengths. It also helped them to explore more systematically its problems and benefits in context. Thinking "with" the framework, rather than just "about" the framework helped them to construct a deeper facility with the framework (Doppelt, 2009; Gómez Puente et al., 2011; Weng et al., 2023). Beyond the design activity, additional practice in applying the framework to diverse types of dilemmas, and receiving real-time feedback, might help students gain self-efficacy as ethical decision-makers. Thus, our recommendation to educators is to combine design activities with other types of instruction, such as lecture, discussions, practice dilemmas, and role-plays.

This study has several limitations. Our sample size was small, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings and introduce potential volunteer bias. We also relied heavily on self-reported data to measure confidence and understanding. These subjective assessments may not fully capture actual changes in ethical knowledge and ethical decision-making on their own. Future studies should aim to address the limitations of the current research by adopting a large sample to improve the generalizability of findings. In addition to our instructional recommendations, we recommend that future studies also incorporate objective, performance-based assessments in addition to self-reported measures to more accurately capture changes in decision-making and conceptual understanding. Finally, extending the duration of the intervention could provide deeper insights into the possible evolution of ethical reasoning during the design processes.