Running Head: FIGHT BAC!™ CASE STUDIES 

Implications for Creating Entertaining Games with Educational Content: Case Studies of User Experiences with The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ Children’s Website
Dissertation Proposal

Barbara A. Chamberlin
University of Virginia

Abstract
In the early 1980s, Thomas Malone asked, “What makes computer games fun?” and  “How can the same things that make computer games captivating be used to make learning with computers more interesting and enjoyable?” (Malone, 1983, p. 241). Malone’s research launched a field of inquiry reflecting specifically on games: what aspects make them enjoyable, how can they be categorized, and who likes what kinds of games. The past 20 years and the Internet have seen changes in the types of games offered on the market and the potential of educational multimedia.  Are the answers to Malone’s questions still the same? This proposed study reviews the gaming and entertainment preferences of 6 children ages 8 to 12 as they use a children’s website on food-borne illness — The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™. This paper reviews relevant literature in gaming studies, game design for children, and children’s use of computer games. Children will be observed while using the website, will be asked to think aloud while using the site, and will be interviewed regarding its use. Qualitative analysis of the observation will provide case studies revealing use preferences of research participants, and cross-case analysis will reveal themes in children’s attitudes and preferences for game activities. Implications from this study will include recommendations for development of game-like educational websites for children.

Table of Contents

Abstract 	2
Table of Contents 	3
Introduction 	4
Narrative 	4
Rationale and Purpose 	5
Potential Significance 	6
Perspectives and Background of the Researcher 	8
Research Questions 	9
Methodological Justification 	9
The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ Website Educational Objectives and Design 	12
Limitations 	15
Review of the Literature 	16
What Roles do Games Play in Learning? 	17
What Types of Games Exist? 	17
What Makes Computer Games Enjoyable? 	19
What Differences Exist in the Ways Boys and Girls use Computers? 	20
How is the Internet Changing Things? 	21
How Should Games be Designed for Children? 	23
Game play. 	23
Interface and usability. 	24
Constructivist approaches. 	24
Instructions, goals and objectives. 	25
Methodology 	26
Overall Approach and Rationale 	26
Sampling and Data Collection 	27
Qualitative Analysis 	32
Trustworthiness, Personal Bias, and Ethical Considerations 	33
References 	35
Appendix A 	39

Implications for Creating Entertaining Games with Educational Content: Case Studies of User Experiences with The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ Children’s Website
Introduction
Narrative 
The challenge for the development team was to create a website that was fun, was full of games for kids, and taught basic food-safety concepts. We weren’t challenged to develop higher-order thinking strategies, model problem solving or even mental dexterity — we wanted to teach kids when they should wash their hands, how long leftovers could be out, the importance of cooking food. This challenged us because we couldn’t imagine kids would search out this information on the Web voluntarily. Our research told us parents usually aren’t aware that they themselves don’t know this information, so parents probably wouldn’t direct their kids to find this information. Teachers may not include this information in their classrooms. However, we knew kids liked to play games on the computer: we envisioned a site that kids would play in their free time only because it was fun, while being exposed to the educational nuggets we thought were important.

During some of our assessment of the site, I watched a girl, 13 years old (even older than our target audience) completely engaged in the site. She didn’t have to continue using it: it was voluntary. She could have used her time to explore the website of her favorite rapper, or download music at another location, neither of which contained educational messages. Instead, she was content to continue using The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ site — telling me she would recommend it and share the URL with friends. She was able to give me examples of what she learned while playing. An important revelation filled my head: if I wanted to educate children— especially about simple content knowledge – I could take advantage of their game-playing free time. Knowing how to share knowledge in an educational manner was only part of the equation: I needed to understand how to entertain. I wanted to put my thumb on what kinds of computer play kids enjoy as a starting point for future educational designs.

Rationale and Purpose
Is there room for educational websites that children seek out for their entertainment value?  If an educational website is not required reading for kids, what characteristics must it have to attract and keep kids’ attention? Does some of the educational content or conventional instructional methods have to be sacrificed to create a site kids will enjoy using?
The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ website has been designed to share food safety knowledge with students in a key age group — 8 – 12 years old — as they begin food preparation procedures, and making their own decisions about consumption. Additionally, food preparation begins in youth as children prepare snacks, reheat leftovers, clear the table and assist in the kitchen.
Children are especially vulnerable to food borne illness. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates “food borne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year” (Mead et al., 1999). Yet these illnesses and deaths are preventable through proper food safety procedures. Knowledge of these procedures are key to preventing illness, and three quarters of Americans are still “getting it wrong” when it comes to food safety (Daniels, Daniels, Gilmet, & Noonan, 2000).
The United States Department of Agriculture placed a priority on educating children in food safety by funding development of The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ website. Evaluating the site addresses the effectiveness of the site in meeting its educational goals; however, an unexpected success may be found if children who would not normally seek out food safety information look for a game to play, use the website, and receive food safety education in the process. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to identify what aspects of the site kids enjoy using.
Potential Significance
In the early 1980s, Thomas Malone launched a field of inquiry when he asked the question “How can the same things that make computer games captivating be used to make learning with computers more interesting and enjoyable?” (Malone, 1983, p. 241). Have new game technologies, programming capabilities and the introduction of the Internet made game play at the turn of the century different then it was 20 years ago? This proposed research can contribute to the field by offering case studies of the use of an educational and entertaining website: The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ . What elements make it appealing to kids? What aspects of other gaming and game-like activities do children in this age group enjoy? The answers to these questions have implications for the development of future sites designed to share educational information through engaging game play.
As an instructional designer for children’s media, I usually begin the design approach with a review of two concepts: the cognitive and intellectual abilities of my target audience and a review of the popular games sold for my age group. While I still believe in reviewing users’ cognitive abilities, I’m no longer content with simply analyzing what sells well: I am interested in uncovering the attitudes and beliefs about why a game is fun. I want to identify key elements that are attractive to kids so that I am better able to design a game-like educational experience.  I’ve designed the proposed research to give me an in-depth review of the opinions, beliefs and behaviors of kids related to sites. In the process of sharing these case studies, I believe the field of theory and research will be advanced as researchers in instructional design continue to ponder Malone’s original question within the framework of new games and gaming environments. In a way, this research is summative in analyzing the Fight BAC!™ website, yet formative in revealing design implications  for educational entertainment.
My interest in this line of research extends beyond the Fight BAC!™ website. Academically, I’m hungry to get at the nature of what children enjoy about all gaming sites. I want sound research that reveals and confirms gaming producers’ secrets for creating sites that “stick” with game players.  After a preliminary literature review, I fear much of this knowledge is proprietary, or offered as anecdotal evidence through industry magazine feature articles. Some theories have been established, but little recent research offers solid evidence or organization of specific components children find enjoyable or highlights differing opinions among children.
 I do not have the resources to do a large-scale, in-depth study of all the games available on the Web. Focusing my research on the existing Fight BAC!™ website offers the advantage of manageable resources in analyzing a site I am familiar with, and a scope that is assessable within a year. The site offers one constant among all users, aiding in the analysis of data and analytic induction. 
While the qualitative nature of case studies prevent generalizability to a larger audience, they help to create a deep understanding of individual use of the site. The reasons individuals find parts of the site entertaining or boring can speak to a designer who is creating a new game or educational activity. More than just knowing whether one type of game is enjoyed, the designer can understand why the game is fun, and design future products with those elements in mind.
Perspectives and Background of the Researcher
My knowledge and skills in instructional design complement my interest in reviewing literature in the field. I have been intimately involved with The Fight Detectives Fight BAC!™ project from its inception: assessing needs, conducting the preliminary research and leading development as well as formative assessment efforts. My familiarity with the field of instructional design, as well as intimacy with this project, increases my perception of use of the site. I am more likely to notice where a user is pausing in a site, because I know exactly what text is on that screen. I have seen many children use the site and understand how long it takes the average child to read the instructions for one particular game. I’ve learned to recognize disinterest in a child who begins listening to a song. I’ve also spent a great deal of time reviewing children’s games and websites. If a study participants mentions her favorite site, I’m likely to have seen it or have a familiarity with the concepts behind it.  I’ve been involved in the development of several children’s games, websites and other learning resources. While this familiarity certainly presents challenges, it speaks to my competence in assessing the site and preparing the case studies. Challenges relating to my familiarity with the site, as well as ethical issues in conducting the research will be addressed in the methodological section of this proposal. 
Research Questions
In analyzing game-like educational activities, with The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ website as a base, I propose research to answer questions in three general areas:
1.	What aspects of The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ website are considered entertaining to users? What components of the other games and activities in the site are considered boring, or do not engage the user? 
2.	What aspects of other preferred games could be implemented in the Fight BAC!™ site to increase enjoyment?
3.	What educational messages do users glean from the site?

I intend to address these questions through qualitative data obtained from observation and interviews. The result will be case studies with cross-case analysis and consideration of outcomes obtained across the small group of participants.
Methodological Justification
The literature in chapter two reviews several theories and articles on game design, the role of play in learning and entertainment factors in games.  Several research articles assess general trends in preferences, such as types of games preferred, gender differences in computer and game use and several propose elements of  popular game play. My experience in designing the Fight BAC!™ website and my preliminary review of the research  has raised two concerns as I approach these case studies:
1.	A preliminary observation of users with this site reveals behavior inconsistent with some of the assertions made in the literature. For example, in reviewing 40 computer games, Dempsey, Lucassen, Haynes and Casey (1997) asserted one key concern in a game environment is a need for clear, concise instructions describing how to play the game. I have found children often dismiss instructions, preferring to discover game play through exploration, or read instructions but don’t fully implement the directions until experimenting within game play. These inconsistencies may come from the samples used to review software (the games in the Dempsey, et al. study were reviewed by 4 adults); the focus of the research (in this example, the focus reviewed games that were available, rather than the opinions of the users of “enjoyable” games; venue for use such as classroom where students may be accustomed to receiving directions or free time where they usually maintain more control; or differences in game play or user behavior resulting in new gaming paradigms. 
2.	Assertions in published research tend to address preferences, without describing attitudes and opinions that lead to those preferences. For example, Buchman and Funk documented the time commitment and preferences of 900 fourth through eighth grade students by asking participants to self-report their favorite games. These games were then categorized, and ranked according to preference. While indications speak to general preferences for game play, the research does not explain what  components of educational games (the least favorite in all categories) were found to be boring, or how components of general entertainment games led to entertainment. 

My interests lie in the how and why. Qualitative research does not strive to predict or control, but to gain understanding of participation (Behrens & Smith, 1996). As Eisner (1991, p. 35) summarizes, “interpretation pertains to the ability to explain why something is taking place”. It is Eisner’s “Primacy of Experience” which will allow instructional designers to see into the mind of the website user, better predicting games that will be enjoyable. 
I believe in-depth review of individual use will speak to reasons behind behavior: revealing recommendations for game design that allows for a variety of game preferences without attempting to identify one standard approach for all users. Rather than identify the preferences most common among all users, qualitative research can address why preferences exist. For example, when reviewing preference for instructions at the beginning of the game, preferences could be quantified in asking how many users want or use written instructions and how many do not. However, a small-scale qualitative analysis can address why users want or use instructions, the game designer may be better able to provide written instructions that are optional for some, or audio instructions for those who prefer hearing them. Case studies may reveal that preferences can be context sensitive: some games may feel so familiar to some children they do not need or want instructions, where other children may not be familiar with the genre. Instructions may not be needed at the beginning of the game, but may be necessary as users progress through. Adventure games often scaffold their instructions, providing information on a need-to-know basis — for example, a training room that is always open. Much of the instructions given happen in such an exploratory way, users may not be aware they are receiving instruction. For example, the first time a player pulls a lever, they see a gateway open: from that point, the player knows to look for a lever if they need a gate opened. Further, instruction can be offered as a reward or motivation: secret key combinations revealing passages or jumping sequences are introduced after proceeding through a difficult activity.  
Even in the seemingly simple concept of receiving instructions, complexities can be revealed through understanding. This how and why , when addressed through in-depth analysis,  can help develop flexible games for a diverse group of users, rather than one set structure for most users.
Qualitative methods may also clarify what is learned by participants using The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ website. For an ongoing pilot study on the site, I have struggled with quantitative methods for evaluating knowledge gain. Particularly in areas of hand washing and appropriate behavior, I have had difficulty in drafting questions that didn’t indicate the correct answer simply in the phrasing. Open-ended questions yielded answers that, though not incorrect, didn’t truly speak to the educational message. For example, one test question asked users of the site to identify two ways to kill bacteria (heat, or cooking to the proper temperature or cleaning). One early respondent answered “washing my hands” and “taking a bath”. While neither of these is incorrect, the answer doesn’t indicate that the participant didn’t actually know both answers. I believe I can use these test questions as starting points in an interview, better understanding the scope of the Web users knowledge, and follow up on answers that need elaboration. That knowledge can then be placed in context, linking knowledge gain to different parts of the site by asking participants to reveal what they learned immediately following use of each part.
The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ Website Educational Objectives and Design
The origin of the website lies in a United States Department of Agriculture request for proposal on food safety education. The funded proposal specified the development of computer/Web-based educational games, interactive activities and songs that conveyed the dangers of food-borne illnesses and preventative measures. In developing the program, I conducted a needs assessment evaluating what was known about food safety research, behavior assessment and existing computer or web resources on the Fight BAC!™ food safety awareness program.
Based on extensive focus group testing and research, the Partnership for Food Borne Illness Education developed the Fight BAC!™ campaign around four key messages – cook food properly; clean surfaces, utensils, hands, dishcloths and food; chill food as needed, to the proper temperature and within the necessary time limits; and separate raw meat and juices from cooked meat and juices (Fight BAC!™, 2002). Initial consultations with child development and food safety experts indicated children in the eight to twelve year age range are most likely to benefit from the cleaning and chilling aspects of these educational messages, as they begin food preparation practices with parents, clear the table, put away leftovers and start spending time in the kitchen. With the consent of members of the Partnership for Food Borne Illness Education, these educational objectives were altered for the website audience so that the user understands:
1.	Which situations require hand washing either before or after.
2.	Proper hand washing procedures, including length of time.
3.	Length of time leftovers can be left out.
4.	How to kill bacteria by cleaning properly and cooking to the proper temperature and slow bacteria growth by chilling food.

I worked with a team of four additional instructional designers, artists, programmers, content specialists and youth development specialists to brainstorm initial game ideas. After initial ideas were developed, simple concepts were tested with children by discussing ideas with them, showing them graphic representations of the games, and sharing song lyrics. As games were developed, children were consulted in the development process, playing early versions of the game and giving feedback relating to the appeal, playability and entertainment value of the site. Throughout the development process, this formative evaluation was key in changing games and in developing new games. 
The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ website is accessible online at http://www.fooddetectives.com. Screen shots from the games are included in Appendix A. The site includes:
1.	Introduction to the Food Detectives characters: Participants meet each of the cartoon characters: Fridge the refrigerator, PT the roll of paper towels, Ima Basin the sink, Slick the pump soap and Thermy, the digital thermometer. 
2.	The Case of the Kid Who Knew Enough:  In this sticker-making activity, users are encouraged to share their food safety knowledge with others in their homes by creating educational stickers and signs. Users select text messages, pictures, borders and backgrounds for their creations.
3.	The Case of the Good Food Gone Bad: This classic game of concentration offers food safety tidbits with each mach, as well as occasional jokes about food. The number of tries it takes to clear the board is noted after each game.
4.	The Case of the Filthy Fingers: An introduction offers information on when hand washing is needed and when it isn’t. Participants then follow a time line, noting the different activities (such as going to the bathroom, playing basketball and preparing a snack) and decide each time hand washing is required. The game changes each time it is played, and participants try to beat the clock when making their decisions. 
5.	The Case of BAC that Kept Growing: Similar to the classic “shoot ‘em up” games in arcades, Users shoot and kill moving bacteria with flames (heat) or with soap bubbles. Users can use an ice cube to temporarily freeze the bacteria and keep them from moving. Users have to kill the majority of the bacteria in a set amount of time before moving to the next level.
6.	Certificate Making Activity: After successfully solving each of the cases, participants are granted access to this activity, and encouraged to create their own certificate of completion by selecting a background, word blurb, border and graphic.
7.	Fight BAC!™ TV: participants select from five songs and animations introducing the food detectives, introducing the Fight BAC!™ concept, conveying the importance of chilling and cooking foods, and providing a 20-second song as a guide for singing while washing hands. Words to the songs appear for those wishing to sing along.
8.	 A Grown-Ups Page is available to participants but directed towards adults. This page encourages adults to learn with children. The key Fight BAC!™ concepts are outlined and additional learning activities are provided. (Because this part of the site has not been designed for children, it will not be included in this assessment.
Limitations
“No proposed research project is without limitations.” (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 42).  I understand that the qualitative nature of the case studies presented will only give a glimpse into the preferences of those I interview. There may be preferences and entertaining components of games that other game players enjoy, which the children I interview do not. 
This proposal is not for an in-depth, comprehensive review of all the elements that make game play enjoyable to children. Analysis will be based on my observations of the participants, and my interpretations of interviews. I recognize that I am biased by having developed the website, and may have a desire to identify aspects of the site that children find enjoyable, simply because I designed aspects to be enjoyable. Through careful review of my methodology and peer de-briefing, I will seek to identify this bias in the results.
Finally, this is a case study of a set number of participants. Kids of both sexes will be included, and it will focus on use during the free time of kids at community centers or schools with fast Internet access. It may not adequately speak to the differences between the sexes or as a function of use in different environments or hardware settings.
Review of the Literature

In asking Malone’s question, “What makes computer games fun?”, at the turn of the new century, new circumstances exist: graphics are more realistic, game players are more experienced in computer game play, simulation and complex computer interactions are more easily programmable. Throughout the past 20 years, gaming preferences have remained amazingly consistent with Malone’s observations of 20 years ago (Dempsey et al., 1997; Smith & Keep, 1986). His work has guided my research questions and my review of relevant research.
In this preliminary literature review, I investigate the importance of games and play in learning, the types of computer games that exist, and aspects of games considered enjoyable to users. In anticipating possible changes in game play since Malone first began his research, I analyze trends and differences in boys’ and girls’ use of computers and review ways in which the Internet is changing game play. While the development of The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ website was driven by previous experiences in instructional design, I continue to seek research and recommendations on game and interface design for children, noting those that have been influential in developing this website or that may be useful in evaluating its use.
What Roles do Games Play in Learning?
Amory, Naicker, Vincent, and Adams (1999) review work of several research studies to conclude that play performs an important role in childhood, “specifically as a voluntary, intrinsically motivating force.” They continue that if it fills the role of a self-motivating and rewarding activity, a “universally accepted mode of learning.  Computer games offer creative environments of play, encouraging exploration, visualization and experimentation. 
Games and simulation can contribute to higher motivation and improve retention of what is learned. Games may also serve many functions: tutoring, amusement, exploring new skills, promoting self-esteem, drill and practice or creating a change in attitudes. (Dempsey, Lucassen, Gilley, & Rasmussen, 1993). Games are meant to be entertaining, not instructional, with incidental learning (Dempsey, Lucassen, Haynes, & Casey, 1996). 
What Types of Games Exist?
Saltzman (2000) summarizes several game genres accepted as standard by the gaming industry,  including:
1.	Action: rely on hand and eye coordination more than story or strategy. These are often referred to as twitch .
2.	Strategy : emphasize logical thinking and planning, stressing resource and time management.
3.	Adventure: including journey of exploration and puzzle solving.
4.	Role-playing: relying on character growth and development, conversation and strategy.
5.	Sports: single player or team games, including contextual references to sports.
6.	Simulation: simulate a given object or process. Gamer takes perspective and recreate machinery,  or complex processes.
7.	Puzzle or classic: may borrow elements from other genres but replicate traditional games. Often referred to as arcade games
8.	Music and dance: development of music or replication of dance elements is the central focus.

Other research offers some variations in game genres, but the above list reviews most covered. There appears to be some disagreement in the literature regarding what components make a game. Much of the research indicates games must include a competitive or challenging element, (Dempsey et al., 1993; Dempsey et al., 1996; Dempsey et al., 1997; Malone, 1980, 1981, 1983; Smith & Keep, 1986). Others don’t specifically require competition against others or a clock (Amory et al., 1999; Jones, 1999), identify games without specifying components that make it a game versus another educational activity, (Char, 1983), or simply rely on research subject’s judgment in identifying or self-reporting activities on games (Buchman & Funk, 1996; Downes, Reddacliff, & Moont, 1996; Harris, 1999; Miller, Schweingruber, & Brandenburg, 2001; Mumtaz, 2001).
While this may be an argument of word semantics, it is also one of classification. I’m not comfortable in specifying the components that make a game for children: I’d like the children to do so. The web presents diverse entertainment options including passive viewing of animation, creative artistic and writing opportunities and more traditional competitive and challenging games. In discussing gaming preferences with children, I will rely on their judgment in determining what a game is.  For example, in The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ site, two activities present a creative environment where participants can develop their own stickers and certificates. No true goal is given, there is no right or wrong answer, and they are actually creating product, as opposed to simulating creation of it. Though this activity does not fit in any of the game definitions given, users of the site may well consider it a game. I will include components of their discussion in my analysis of gaming preferences.
What Makes Computer Games Enjoyable?
Malone’s initial theory (1980) includes three categories: challenge, fantasy and curiosity. While any one game doesn’t have to include aspects of all three categories, each heightens enjoyment. Challenge includes granting the user uncertain outcomes, obvious and personally meaningful goals, and varying and appropriate difficulty levels. He also encouraged the use of randomness and the sense of discovery for the learner, advising goals and challenges can engage the self-esteem of the user, lowering it if the expectations are inappropriate.  Fantasy includes extrinsic fantasy where the users actions determine what happens in the game, and intrinsic fantasy where the fantasy provides feedback as well to the user. Curiosity yields from environments that are neither too complicated nor simple, with appropriate graphics, music and animation. Surprise and increasingly complex tasks also encourage curiosity. (Malone, 1983)
Smith and Keep advise “it is most improbable that any agent could be equally motivating to all learners, and attribution of general motivational effects to the computer seems misguided” (1986, p. 83). They continue that beyond the attributes of a game, involvement of the learner in his or her own learning is motivational. Jones (1998) concurs, believing if the learner is motivated from within to learn, simply presenting the information is engaging. While these findings speak to the nature of engaging learning, they may not reflect directly on game play.
What Differences Exist in the Ways Boys and Girls use Computers? 
A large body of research indicates boys and girls view computers differently, prefer different activities (boys prefer games and girls prefer communication or creative activities), and boys spend more on the computer than girls: but recent research indicates these gaps are narrowing (Rocheleau, 1995). More recently, Wartella, O’Keefe and Scantlin (2000) attempt to summarize sex differences in computer interest, game use, and preferences through analysis of research in the field. They agree that gaming is the most common use of computers in all ages, though boys self-report more use than girls. They also concur that content interests are different, summarizing research in the field to conclude boys prefer violent action and sports, whereas girls prefer educational, fantasy-adventure, puzzle or spatial relations games.
A growing consensus among researchers indicates sex differences seen in previous research will change dramatically as games are developed specifically for girls and access between both sexes increases. As more games and activities include activities girls prefer, such as games based on reality and creative play (Subrahmanyam, Kraut, Greenfield, & Gross, 2000) and arcade/simulation games (Miller et al., 2001), boys and girls may use games in equal duration and intensity.  The National School Board Foundation surveyed 1,735 randomly chosen households with children ages 2-17 in March, 2000, and found boys and girls use the Internet with equal involvement, breaking the myth that girls are technology-phobic. The survey does reinforce research that boys and girls use the Internet differently, with boys more likely to seek entertainment, and girls more interested in communication and educational sites (Safe & smart: research and guidelines for children's use of the Internet, 2000).
Boys and girls may be at different developmental levels, though they are the same age. Nielsen found boys are significantly more annoyed by onscreen text than girls (40% of boys complained about wordy websites, whereas 8% of girls did), and girls may request more instruction on-screen. In his website usability study of 55 children, he found boys spent more time alone on computers and girls spent more time with a parent (Nielsen, 2002). 
Wartella, O’Keefe and Scantlin. summarize sex differences most profoundly in concluding “Rather than thinking in terms of ‘boys’ or ‘girls’, we need to focus on creating interesting content that will engage the minds of all children” (2000, p. 30). The above findings suggest equal numbers of boys and girls should be included in all evaluation. 
How is the Internet Changing Things?
Children’s use of computers is changing: computer access is increasing in all groups, even in schools with the highest levels of disadvantage, 72% of participants in a study of 512 middle school students had access to a computer outside of school (Miller et al., 2001).  The National School Board Foundation’s survey suggests schools narrow the gap in Internet access among varying income levels. In families with annual incomes less than $40,000, 76% of their respondents who report Internet access say they use the Web at school (Safe & smart: research and guidelines for children's use of the Internet, 2000).
Kids are turning to the Internet in their spare time, and they are looking for games. Access to the Internet has seen a tremendous growth in the past couple of years. From 1993 to 1999, Americans connect to the Internet leapt from 3 million to 80 million, (Montgomery, 2000) with 52% of children having access to the Internet in 2000.(Woodard & Gridina, 2000) As access to computers by children outside of class increases, it is important to note that all children, both boys and girls, regard game playing as the most frequent activity when self-reporting their use of computers outside of the classroom (Downes et al., 1996; Harris, 1999; Mumtaz, 2001; Selwyn, 1998; Smith & Keep, 1986).
Montgomery (2000) suggests that new content and services are being created exclusively for children, recognizing that children may well spend a majority of their online time at portals design specifically for them.  Miller, et al. (2001) see implications the Internet holds: including the blending of educational content with game-like features. This trend also includes reaching children in their spare time with educational messages, instead of through traditional classroom learning times 
As Internet access increases, non-game activities that are facilitated by the Internet such as e-mail, instant messaging, and chat may increase.  Many websites replicate game activities found on CD-ROMS, while also offering puzzles, stories, downloadable art and games, as well as the social communication opportunities. Additionally, new media abilities of the Internet impacts children through interactivity, convergence of existing technologies in new way and ubiquity of the technology in all aspects of children’s lives (Montgomery, 2000). 
Montgomery believes an intense focus on Internet use exists, but much of it is proprietary. Wang also concludes that little research exists on how children interact with Internet resources (Wang, 2002).
How Should Games be Designed for Children?
Game play. 
Books, research articles, trade magazines and anecdotal recommendations provide hundreds of suggestions on ‘how to design for children’.  There is a lot of overlap in the suggestions, but each organizes the recommendations in a different way. 
Malone’s initial recommendations involving curiosity, fantasy and challenge (Malone, 1980) are still considered relevant in the field (Dempsey et al., 1993). In addition, children require graded levels of progressively increasing difficulty,  surprises and discovery, and simple input requirements (Smith & Keep, 1986).
Based on their usability research at Microsoft, Hanna, Risden, Czerwinski and Alexander (1999) rephrase some of these suggestions by recommending activities be inherently interesting, offer expanding complexity and support, and provide supportive reward structures.
As would be expected, graphics, animation, and sound play an important role in children’s enjoyment. Jakobsdottir and Krey (1993) advocate large, detailed pictures and details kinds of animation recommended. Stimulating storylines are also key to maintaining interest (Amory et al., 1999). 
Following a year and a half of contact and observations with hundreds of children in a variety of environments, Druin, et al. (1999) concluded children want three things from their technology experiences: control of their environment including how they spend their time with a variety of choices, social experiences in which they can share, show and use technologies with each other, and expressive tools  to tell stories, create games and build. They also indicate children are particularly aware of “what is cool”, want to have ease of learning, quality appearance of software and a variety of multi-sensory, multimedia environments.
Interface and usability. 
While many of the above recommendations can also be applied to designing the user interface, more specific interface and navigation recommendations include icons that are visibly meaningful, a cursor design and rollover use that communicates functionality (Hanna et al., 1999).
Most recently, Nielsen conducted website usability tests with 55 6- 12 year old children, concluding standard usability recommendations are equally relevant with kids as with  adults, including the need for clear, consistent navigation, avoiding non-standard interaction, and avoiding fancy wording. In addition, he found children to be more willing to sweep the screen for hot spots, are more able to use navigation metaphors like maps or rooms, and rarely scrolled for more information indicating all important information needs to be “above the fold” on the screen (Nielsen, 2002).
Constructivist approaches. 
Bailey (1996) encourages constructivist approaches with self-directed learning, also advocating that children be encouraged to develop their own games. Overall, she indicates programs can be enjoyable to children without being competitive, as when framed as a creative activity. Constructivist approaches are also evident in Issing’s (1994) recommendations including learner-orientated study, creative learning in context, active learning, open study and self-initiated independent future study. Some of the concepts in constructivist approaches echo the previous recommendations of giving the user control over his or her learning. 
Instructions, goals and objectives. 
Dempsey et al. (1996) found adults require clear instructions, well-explained goals and objectives. Discovery learning was frustrating to adults. Reviews of top-selling video games designed for children do not reveal these instructions, goals and objectives requested by adults. Several games encourage this kind of exploration for children, engaging children in game play immediately without presenting instructions or objectives. Harbeck and Sherman (1999) agree that exploration is attractive to young children (under age seven), and also advocate simple navigation, relevance to real world situations and active, enjoyable experiences.
Rather than suggesting one approach for all children, Kahn’s (1999) experience with his program, ToonTalk, led him to conclude that children differ in the degree to which they explore, use instructions, or precede game play. He feels “even the same child will prefer different styles of interaction depending upon her prior experience with the software” (1999, p. 225).  He has found success with ToonTalk in imbedding puzzles and instructive sequences in larger adventures.
In recognizing this diversity among children, Hanna et al. (1999) suggest instructions be age-appropriate, easy to comprehend and remember, given by on-screen characters that are supportive rather than distracting, and allow children to control access to instructional information. 
A more in-depth review and categorization of game development recommendations could assist variable identification and organization in analysis of case studies for the proposed research.  In conjunction with my data analysis, I propose reviewing additional research-based and industry recommendations, and developing a structure that incorporates they key areas of research. Organizing research recommendations into categories and sub-categories may help identify emergent themes through cross-case analysis of the case studies. Additionally, themes in the data analysis may yield a more structured organization of the research recommendations.
Methodology
Overall Approach and Rationale
This research will present analysis and case studies of 6 children using The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ website. I’ve chosen qualitative methodology to unveil the preferences, attitudes and opinions of the users regarding the entertainment value of the sites. Beyond indicating the entertainment level, the case studies may speak to specific components of the site that are enjoyable. Cross case analysis will generate themes among cases, highlighting similarities in enjoyable aspects, or a diversity in what entertainment values are important to users.
My interests in the user’s experience in using the site meet several characteristics Marshall  and Rossman (1999) outline as having strengths in qualitative methodology: 
1.	I’m interested in the processes children use to navigate the site, learn about the games and interact with the software.
2.	This kind of context-sensitive use is difficult to replicate in a lab or experimental setting.
3.	Relevant variables have yet to be identified regarding children’s use of this site. In addition, variables that have been identified by Malone and others regarding game play may be updated.

Case studies are an effective strategy for focusing on society and culture: immersing the user in the setting (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). While the nature of this research does not seek to identify a larger culture, or even a gaming culture, it will immerse the user in the setting of a game, revealing their behaviors, thoughts and attitudes relative to that setting. 
Extensive interviewing will be employed for gathering data including observation of the participants while using the site, transcriptions of the users comments during a think aloud method, follow up interviews with the subject relative to knowledge gain, use experience, and comments about gaming in general.
Sampling and Data Collection
Participants will be selected based on personal recommendations from after-school computer programs, school personnel and colleagues.  Subjects will be interviewed where they use the computer most frequently, so that interaction with the hardware, software, connection settings and other computer-based aspects will be familiar. Because a fast Internet connection is key in utilizing all of the website within one two-hour sitting, I will seek subjects who access the Internet in school or community labs with fast connections. I will seek users of both sexes, within the eight to 12 year range the site was designed for.
In analyzing hundreds of children using technology, Druin et al., (1999) suggest conducting field research where the subject regularly uses the computer with one interactor and two note-takers. The interactor  prompts the user with questions, avoiding questions that would steer the child to particular activities, allowing the child to direct computer use. They found children were distracted when the interactor took notes. One of the two assigned note-takers recorded activities and the other recorded quotes.  In my pilot study, I found the children were not distracted by my note taking, additionally, it inserted important pauses in the conversation, often prompting the subject to add information. I agree with Druin et al. that it is possible to miss important data when serving as an interactor, and I plan to audio-record the proceedings to supplement my notes.
Data collected during use of the website will include information on how they used the site, their opinions of it and what they learned. Data will consist of transcripts of the session and my observation notes while the participant is using site. These notes will address participants’ apparent interest in each game or activity, estimated length of time in each activity, and familiarity with the interface and game play. In many cases, these observations will prompt questions in follow up interviews. These documents will be combined in a single write-up used for analysis, taking advantage of vocabulary and reflections of both the participant and myself as the observer. Immediately following each session, I will record my immediate responses and additional thoughts on the process. These will be included as a separate journal for analysis.
Seidman (1991) believes the purpose of in-depth interviewing is to understand the experiences of others and give the experiences meaning in a larger context. He suggests a three-interview structure for in-depth phenomenological interviews, beginning with a focused life history, followed by a second interview focused on the details of the experience and the concluding with providing an opportunity for reflection by the subject on the meaning of the experience. I am not conducting a true phenomenology of a culture, rather a look individuals with a similar experience – the use of the website. I plan to adapt this three-point plan to include:
1.	Focused use of The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ website, with participants using the Think-Aloud Method (van Someren, 1994).
2.	Discussion detailing the experience and targeting knowledge gain
3.	Reflective discussion encouraging participant to relate the website to other favorite games and their entertainment components.

In a pilot study refining my methodology, I conducted preliminary interviews with subjects. These interviews indicated one interview is adequate with this age group, and 2 hours in using the site is appropriate and within their attention span.
At the beginning of each session, I will introduce myself and strive to build a rapport with the child.  I will give explain the think-aloud process, giving and example of how it will work,  encouraging the user to begin using The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ website, narrating their thoughts as they use the site. The pilot study indicated some children are comfortable with this, while others may not be as talkative. As needed, I will supplement the process with prompts and questions regarding the site.
I want to build flexibility into the data collection, so that questions and interview patterns can reflect interests and thinking patterns of the subject. Based on interviews in my pilot study, questioning may includes prompts such as:
1.	“You’ve replayed this game several times. Let’s take a break from shooting the bacteria for a minute. Why have you hit the 'Play the game again’ button  so many times?” 
2.	“If you were to email your friend and tell her about this site, how would you describe this activity? Would you tell her it was a fun activity? What parts of it are fun to you?”
3.	“Do you think you have learned anything in playing this particular game? Does it matter if you do? What could others learn from playing this?”
4.	“If I weren’t sitting here with you right now, would you listen to all of these songs? Why? Which of these are your favorite… tell me what you think other kids would like about them.”
5.	“I noticed you didn’t ‘win’ the first time you played this game… yet you kept playing it until you did. Why is that?”

Discussion throughout website use will include knowledge gain. After the subject has completed the site, I will ask structured questions regarding food safety knowledge. These include: 
1.	“Sometimes it is important to wash your hands. Other times you can wash your hands, but it’s really not needed. I’m going to give you some examples, please tell me if when it is really important to wash hands.
-	Before going to the bathroom
-	After going to the bathroom
-	Before watching television
-	After watching television
-	Before making a snack or drink
-	After making a snack or drink
-	Before playing with a dog or pet
-	After playing with a dog or pet
-	Before doing your homework
-	After doing your homework
-	Before feeding your baby sister
-	After feeding your baby sister
-	Before playing basketball outside
-	After playing basketball outside.”

2.	“How long should you wash your hands for?”
3.	“You’ve eaten a pizza with your family, and there are leftovers. If you want those leftovers to be safe to eat the next day, how long can they be left out before putting them in the fridge?”
4.	“Bacteria live on food we eat, and sometimes on our hands or other things. What are two ways you can kill bacteria.”
5.	“Why keep food cold in the fridge or freezer? What does it do to bacteria?”

Answers to their questions will be included in the transcripts of the session.
In concluding the session, I will encourage participants to relate this website to other games they enjoy, identifying similarities in what is fun about other sites, or seeking examples of what could make this site more fun. Questions may include:
1.	“I’d like you to think about other computer games you play here. Think of one or two that you consider the ‘most fun’,  and tell me why you like them.”
2.	“Imagine I hire you for my company and your job is to take this website, and make it the most fun for kids just like you… what changes would you make? What did you like that there should be more of? What aspects were boring?”
3.	“Think about a time you were surfing on the Web, found a game and started playing it but… you just didn’t enjoy it. Why?” 

I’d like to explore follow-up interviews with parents or guardians of each student. Some of the activities involve creating stickers and certificates the user can take home and share with family members. In pilot interviews, some users discussed newly learned knowledge with their parents who shared the conversations with me. The site was designed to encourage this discussion: a follow up phone interview may reveal if it has taken place. I understand this may not yield quality data: users may discuss the evaluation process rather than the site itself  (When asked “What did you do today?”, participants may mention playing a game while I asked questions, rather than discuss the new site they viewed), parents may give inaccurate estimates in an effort to  portray their child in the best possible light, or the time between Internet use and discussion time with parents may be too great.  If the interviews are successful, I may identify social aspects of a game that children find enjoyable. For example, part of the enjoyment of using a site may be becoming an expert on that topic at home. I will keep notes on observations made by parents should this method yield data.
Qualitative Analysis
Based on Rossman and Rallis’ (1998) recommendations,  I will organize the data, familiarize myself with it, generate categories, themes and patterns then code and recode data appropriately, and challenge the explanations  for the themes. Transcribing the interviews and combining them with my observation notes will help familiarize myself with the data. I will also rely on organization of all the data through nVivo, a qualitative analysis software program to become comfortable with the data and organize it. In reading and re-reading all data, I will generate themes, then code all data based on the themes. I expect these categories to change repeatedly, reorganizing sub categories into larger categories. I may also use a graphic organizer, charts and graphs to develop categories in  cross-case analysis. I’ll review the data again in searching for confirming or disconfirming data for the themes, or missing elements in my analysis.
I propose a variable-oriented analysis, seeking themes across cases, and specific instances within each theme. For example, one theme may be instructions: one user may feel receiving text instructions detracts from the “fun” of a game, where another may indicate they can’t feel comfortable playing a game without the instructions. 
In summarizing data, each case will be briefly introduced, as will the themes generated through cross-case analysis. Individual examples from each case will be used to highlight the variables within each theme. Emphasis will be placed on diversity within each theme area.
Trustworthiness, Personal Bias, and Ethical Considerations
In adapting work from Rossman and Rallis, 1998, Marshall and Rossman (1999) emphasize the researcher’s responsibility to scrutinize his or her own biography, power, interaction with participants and writing, as well as being vigilant about ethics. All methods of collection and analysis will be detailed to allow readers of the final research to assess my trustworthiness. I will use journaling and memos to attempt to identify my own biases. Data will be summarized in case study format for each user, allowing the reader to understand the personal thoughts and stories with each. In addition, data will be summarized in tables to clarify common themes and variables, allowing reviews of my interpretations by others during the coding process. I will take advantage of a peer de-briefer to discuss my coding and analysis, utilizing their impartiality to identify potential bias.
I understand my ethical responsibilities to the subjects. I will make every effort to fully educate them regarding the study, their potential risks and reward for being involved. Their parents or guardian will be included in the decision to participate or not participate in the study, and I will emphasize that they can withdraw at any time from the study.  In describing each case, a pseudonym will be used, guaranteeing anonymity to participants. If they wish to receive copies of their interview, or for final tapes to be destroyed after research is completed, I will grant their requests.
In addition, I understand I have a responsibility to follow through on this research, providing value to the field in exchange for participants’ time and involvement in the project. 
Research investigating user opinions and use on this website has already been approved by the Institutional Review Board at the university. Following a successful proposal of this research, that agreement will be amended to include audio taping of the interviews, and potential phone interview of the parent

References
	Amory, A., Naicker, K., Vincent, J., & Adams, C. (1999). The use of computer games as an educational tool: Identification of appropriate game types and tame elements. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 311-321.
	Bailey, D. H. (1996). Constructivism and multimedia: Theory and application; Innovation and transformation. International Journal of Instructional Media, 23(2), 161-166.
	Behrens, J. T., & Smith, M. L. (1996). Data and data analysis. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 945-989). New York: Simon and Schuster.
	Buchman, D. D., & Funk, J. B. (1996). Video and computer games in the '90s: Children's time commitment and game preference. Children Today, 24(1), 12-15,31.
	Char, C. (1983). Research and design issues concerning the development of educational software for children Technical Report No 14 (REPORTS - Research/Technical. SPEECHES, CONFERENCE PAPERS.): Bank Street Coll. of Education, New York, NY. Center for Children and Technology. [BBB22835].
	Daniels, R., Daniels, B., Gilmet, P., & Noonan, D. (2000). 2000 Home Food Safety Study Report, [Website]. Audits International. Available: http://www.audits.com/2000HFS.html [2001, August 9].
	Dempsey, J. V., Lucassen, B., Gilley, W., & Rasmussen, K. (1993). SInce Malone's Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction: What's the score in the gaming literature? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 22(2), 173-183.
	Dempsey, J. V., Lucassen, B., Haynes, L. L., & Casey, J. A. (1996). Instructional applications of computer games (REPORTS - Research/Technical. SPEECHES, CONFERENCE PAPERS.).
	Dempsey, J. V., Lucassen, B., Haynes, L. L., & Casey, M. S. (1997). An exploratory study of forty computer games: COE technical report no. 97-2 (Technical Report): University of South Alabama.
	Downes, T., Reddacliff, C., & Moont, S. (1996). Children's use of electronic technologies in the home (based on structured interviews with 275 children in eleven primary schools in urban Sydney) (REPORTS - Descriptive (i.e. Project Descriptions). REPORTS - Research/Technical.).
	Druin, A., Bederson, B., Boltman, A., Miura, A., Knotts-Callahan, D., & Platt, D. (1999). Children as our technology design partners. In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children's technology. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
	Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan.
	Fight BAC!™ keep food safe from bacteria. (2002). [Web site]. Partnership for Food Safety Educxation. Available: http://www.fightbac.org [2002, March 28, 2002].
	Hanna, L., Risden, K., Czerwinski, M., & Alexander, K. J. (1999). The role of usability reserach in designing children's computer products. In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children's technology. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
	Harbeck, J. D., & Sherman, T. M. (1999). Seven principles for designing developmentally appropriate web sites for young children. Educational Technology, 39(4), 39-44.
	Harris, S. (1999). Secondary school students' use of computers at home. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 331-339.
	Issing, L. J. (1994). From instructional technology to multimedia didactics. Educational Media International, 31(3), 171-182.
	Jakobsdottir, S., & Krey, C. L. (1993). Different computer graphics for girls and boys? Preliminary design guidelines (INFORMATION ANALYSES (State-of-the-Art Papers, Research Summaries, Reviews of the Literature on a Topic). SPEECHES, CONFERENCE PAPERS.).
	Jones, M. G. (1998). Creating electronic learning environments: Games, flow, and the user interface.
	Jones, M. G. (1999, February 10-14, 1999). What can we learn from computer games: Strategies for learner involvement. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Assocation for Educational Communicators and Technology, Houston, TX.
	Kahn, K. (1999). Helping children learn hard things: Computer programming with familiar objects and actions. In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children's technology. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
	Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? Heuristics for designing instructional computer games. Paper presented at the Joint Symposium: Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Small Computers and Special Interest Group on Personal Computers, Palo Alto, California.
	Malone, T. W. (1981). What makes computer games fun? BYTE, 6, 258-277.
	Malone, T. W. (1983). Guidelines for designing educational computer programs. Childhood Education, 59(4), 241-247.
	Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Desiging qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication.
	Mead, P. S., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., McCaig, L. F., Bresee, J. S., Shapiro, C., Griffin, P. M., & Tauxe, R. V. (1999). Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 5(5), 607-625.
	Miller, L. M., Schweingruber, H., & Brandenburg, C. L. (2001). Middle school students' technology practices and preference: Re-examining gender differences. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(2), 125-140.
	Montgomery, K. C. (2000). Children's media culture in the new millennium: Mapping the digital landscape. The Future of Children - Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 145-167.
	Mumtaz, S. (2001). Children's enjoyment and perception of computer use in the home and the school. Computers & Education, 36(4), 347-362.
	Nielsen, J. (2002, April 14, 2002). Kids' corner: Website usability for children, [Website]. Useit.com. Available: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020414.html [2002, April 21, 2002].
	Rocheleau, B. (1995). Computer use by school-age children: Trends, patterns, and predictors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(1), 1-17.
	Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (1998). Learning in the field. Thousand Oakes, California: Sage Publications.
	Safe & smart: research and guidelines for children's use of the Internet. (2000). Alexandria, VA: Naitonal School Boards Foundation.
	Saltzman, M. (2000). Game design: Secrets of the sages (Second ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan.
	Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
	Selwyn, N. (1998). The effect of using a home computer on students' educational use of IT. Computers & Education, 31(2), 211-227.
	Smith, D., & Keep, R. (1986). Children's opinions of educational software. Educational Research, 28(2), 83-88.
	Subrahmanyam, K., Kraut, R. E., Greenfield, P. M., & Gross, E. F. (2000). The impact of home computer use on children's activities and development. The Future of Children - Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 123-144.
	van Someren, M. W. (1994). The Think Aloud Method: A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes (GUIDES - Non-Classroom Use (For Administrative & Support Staff, and for Teachers, Parents, Clergy, Researchers, Counselors, etc. in Non-Classroom Situations). BOOKS.).
	Wang, Y.-m. (2002, March 22, 2002). Children's use of the Internet at home. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education 2002, Nashville, TN, USA.
	Wartella, E., O'Keefe, B., & Scantlin, R. (2000). Children and interactive media: A compendium of current research and directions for the future: Markle Foundation.
	Woodard, I., Emory H, & Gridina, N. (2000). Media in the home 2000: The  fifth annual survey of parents and children (Survey): The Annenburg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

Appendix A
Screen shots and Descriptions of The Food Detectives Fight BAC!™ Website
Immediately after choosing to play, the user sees an introductory ‘movie trailer’and this main screen and interface. 

Introduction to the Food Detectives characters: Participants meet each of the cartoon characters: Fridge the refrigerator, PT the roll of paper towels, Ima Basin the sink, Slick the pump soap and Thermy, the digital thermometer. 

The Case of the Kid Who Knew Enough:  In this sticker-making activity, users are encouraged to share their food safety knowledge with others in their homes by creating educational stickers and signs. Users select text messages, pictures, borders and backgrounds for their creations.

The Case of the Good Food Gone Bad: This classic game of concentration offers food safety tidbits with each mach, as well as occasional jokes about food. The number of tries it takes to clear the board is noted after each game.

The Case of the Filthy Fingers: An introduction offers information on when hand washing is needed and when it isn’t. Participants then follow a time line, noting the different activities (such as going to the bathroom, playing basketball and preparing a snack) and decide when hand washing is required. Participants try to beat the clock when making their decisions. 

The Case of BAC that Kept Growing: Similar to the classic “shoot ‘em up” games in arcades, Users shoot and kill moving bacteria with flames (heat) or with soap bubbles. Users can use an ice cube to temporarily freeze the bacteria and keep them from moving. Users have to kill the majority of the bacteria in a set amount of time before moving to the next level.

Certificate Making Activity: After successfully solving each of the cases, participants are granted access to this activity, and encouraged to create their own certificate of completion by selecting a background, word blurb, border and graphic.

Fight BAC!™ TV: participants select from five songs and animations introducing the food detectives, introducing the Fight BAC!™ concept, conveying the importance of chilling and cooking foods, and providing a 20-second song as a guide for singing while washing hands. Words to the songs appear for those wishing to sing along.
game screenshot