Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes: using gamification of cognitive overload to teach leadership and psychology concepts

Abstract

Purpose

Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes is a puzzle-based video game that allows Leadership educators to facilitate a highly interactive and behaviorally intense experience within a traditional classroom environment. In this manuscript, we discuss appropriate use cases, curricular alignments and provide a sample lesson plan outlining one way of using the game.

Design/methodology/approach

The cooperative and team-based nature of this game provides opportunities to create interactive lessons on a variety of topics, such as communication, group dynamics, leadership, conflict strategies and cognitive load.

Findings

Our primary reflection is that this game provides a good balance between fun engagement and rigorous learning. While deploying this game in several leadership and psychology courses, students have shown excitement and enthusiasm about playing the game, especially when we have built up some anticipation for it while discussing cognitive load theory (CLT) or other content in the classes leading up to the experience.

Originality/value

The game provides a unique behavioral experience that is useful in several different educational outlets. Fundamentally, the game provides the opportunity for creating three dynamics among small groups of students: cognitive overload, intergroup stress and conflict and communication in stressful environments. Each of these three could be applicable in various courses and curriculum.

Citation

Whitaker, B. and Whitaker, W. (2024), "Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes: using gamification of cognitive overload to teach leadership and psychology concepts", Journal of Leadership Education, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOLE-05-2024-0066

Introduction

Simulation-based education has long been acknowledged as a method to create authentic behavioral experiences while offering the security and ease of access of traditional classroom environments (Campos, Nogal, Caliz, & Juan, 2020). Leadership and social science educators are often called upon to teach curriculum that has behavioral outcomes, and in many cases these outcomes demand a degree of experiential rigor that is difficult to develop with more traditional pedagogical techniques such as lecture or discussion. In these circumstances, educators may consider the use of simulations and games to reinforce the student experience in a visceral manner.

This manuscript describes the use of a puzzle video game, Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes, to simulate cognitive overload and related concepts in an academic setting. The cooperative and team-based nature of this game provides opportunities for educators to create interactive lessons on a variety of topics, such as communication, group dynamics, leadership, conflict strategies and cognitive load. In this paper, we describe our experience using this game in a variety of educational settings and with three specific curricular alignments. A lesson plan for how the game might be incorporated in a classroom setting is provided as well as sample debriefing questions that a faculty member could use to reinforce learning and the educational outcomes of the experience.

Review of related literature

It is important to note at the outset that this game is a commercial entertainment product and was not developed or intended for a learning environment or for use in research. However, several use cases have been identified in popular literature, and a few scholars have incorporated this game into study design. Among those is Wijk (2019), who used this platform for studying nonverbal communication factors among close versus remote collaborators. Other research has considered the nature of VR spaces versus desktop user experiences using this program (Berkman, Catak, & Eremektar, 2020).

Several educational practitioners have also identified the use of this game for educational purposes, although not specific to leadership education. Wilson (2019) describes a process for the use of this game in the context of language development and English for second language learners. There is also significant popular literature describing pedagogical practices and lesson plans incorporating this game, but little of that has been reviewed and published in academic journals.

While this game has limited exposure in the literature, the use of more traditional simulation as a teaching tool has been studied extensively. Dimitrios and Makri (2017) provided a comprehensive review of the literature and concluded that games and simulations can have a positive impact on cognitive, behavioral and affective learning. Scholars have considered the efficacy of games and simulations in a variety of specific contexts (Pirker & Gutl, 2015), measuring effectiveness and outcomes (Reis & Kenett, 2017) as well as the nature of balancing fun with rigorous study (Serrano-Laguna, Manero, Freire, & Fernandez-Manjon, 2018).

Games and simulations have been previously identified as an educational tool for leadership education (Jenkins, 2013), although in Jenkin’s research they were among the least common pedagogical practices used (Jenkins, 2020). This could not only be a result of educators inexperience using simulations but also a response to the few commercial products being available that are designed to provide dedicated social science experiences. This is contrasted with other disciplines where games and simulation are more common, such as psychology (see Gressick & Langston, 2017; Xu et al., 2021).

Psychological research has focused on the potential cognitive benefits of game play in the classroom. For instance, Stansbury and Earnest (2017) have demonstrated the usefulness of adding gamification elements when teaching industrial organizational psychology, citing improvements to overall learning and mastery of content knowledge as well as increased intrinsic motivation. Games have also been used in developmental, social and cognitive psychology courses, to assist in the development of reasoning and critical thinking skills.

Cognitive load and its connection to psychological processes has also been explored through gaming (Stiller & Schworm, 2019). Cognitive load or the amount of information that can be properly encoded, stored and retrieved via working memory systems, not only impacts the ability to accurately learn new information but also influences behavior and decision-making (Buchner, Buntins, & Kerres, 2022). Modeling cognitive load through gaming provides a controlled environment in which students receive immediate feedback on their authentic behavior and the opportunity to connect that feedback to relevant course content.

Description of the teaching tool

Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes is a puzzle video game. The game places one participant in the role of the “Defuser,” a person charged with manipulating a virtual bomb via a game controller and relaying information to the other participants playing the role of the “Experts.” Experts are provided a Bomb Defusal Manual with specific instructions for how to defuse the bomb but can only verbally communicate that information to the Defuser since they cannot themselves manipulate the bomb. The core gameplay element is that the participants in each role cannot view the other’s resources; that is, the Defuser cannot see the manual, and the Experts cannot see the bomb, and they must therefore communicate complex information quickly and accurately in a high-pressure environment. “Missions” are available with varying levels of difficulty and range in length from 3:00–8:00 minutes.

To win the mission, the Defuser must disarm one or more modules on the bomb. In every case, the Defuser will need to relay information about the bomb or the module to the Experts, who will then use the manual to determine an appropriate action and relay that back to the Defuser. The game is intentionally designed to make communication difficult, for example, having several passcodes being homophones of each other (“seas,” “sees” and “C’s”), and any mistakes are punished with a strike and a reduction in the time remaining to defuse. Participants are acutely aware of the time being short and will often struggle to successfully manage the cognitive load and pressure they are facing.

The game is published by Steel Crate Games and is available for purchase for about $15 from the publisher’s website: https://keeptalkinggame.com/. Together with a game controller, a typical application in a classroom therefore is a one-time expense of less than $50 to use indefinitely. While the game is named in a manner that implies violence, it is appropriate for all audiences, and is rated E10+ by the Entertainment Software Rating Board. There is no violence portrayed in the game, and students are unlikely to be scared or disturbed by the content.

The pedagogical use of this game takes the form of an in-class activity and discussion. Faculty utilizing this activity should begin by identifying specific learning outcomes they are hoping to achieve and building it into a course that has related elements. The following is a general lesson plan for how a faculty member might incorporate this activity into their class.

Sample lesson plan

Time

At least 30 minutes should be allowed for the game; 60–90 minutes is preferable.

Participants

A minimum of three students with a maximum of ∼15 students may actively participate; any number may observe.

Materials

A PC with the game Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes should be installed. A game controller and several printed copies of the Bomb Defusal Manual (it helps to put each one in a three-ring binder) should be provided. In addition, classroom space with a TV or projector capable of displaying the game is needed.

Procedure

• (1)

  Set up the room by loading the game and connecting the PC to the projector. Ensure that students who will be serving as Experts cannot see the projector and that the student serving as the Defuser can easily see the screen.

• (2)

  Explain to students that this activity, while simply a fun game, is designed to simulate cognitive overload and will cause them to be temporarily stressed. Discuss any rules for appropriate behavior.

• (3)

  When ready to begin, have the Defuser operate the game controller, and have one to three students take on the role of the Expert with the Bomb Defusal Manuals. Other students should be observing and taking notes while able to view both parties and the screen. The Defuser will initiate the mission by selecting to start the game.

• (4)

  During the mission, the Defuser and Experts will be highly time-stressed. They are likely to make errors or simple mistakes, and you may use this time to provide observational notes with the group of observer students.

• (5)

  Following the mission, whether the students successfully defused the bomb or not, you may wish to have a short debrief conversation. Observer students may provide insight at this point, and you may also allow the Defuser and Experts to engage in planning for better communication strategies in the following mission.

• (6)

  Depending on the number of students and time remaining, you may give each student two or three missions in a specific role, then rotate them to a different role.

• (7)

  After the conclusion of the activity, engage students with a full debrief conversation.

Sample debrief reflection prompts

• (1)

  When serving as the Defuser or Expert, did you feel a sense of cognitive overload? When in the observer role, did you notice errors that the Defuser or Experts made?

• (2)

  How did communication work? Were there problems or inaccuracies? Did the stress of the timer and cognitive load lead to less effective communication? How did communication change after the mission ended?

• (3)

  Did the stressors of the activity create any group conflict? How did the group handle this?

Discussion and future implementation

Playing the game in an academic or curricular setting such as described above, there are several outcomes that an educator could expect to achieve. It is important to note that the game itself is not instructive in any particular way in terms of leadership and other social science concepts, and it requires intentionality on the part of the educator to make it educationally valuable. However, it does provide a unique behavioral experience that is useful in several different educational outlets. It has been our experience that students find this activity highly engaging and enjoyable and are enthusiastic participants. Fundamentally, the game provides the opportunity for creating three dynamics among small groups of students: cognitive overload, intergroup stress and conflict, and communication in stressful environments. Each of these three could be applicable in various courses and curriculum.

Regarding cognitive load, the use of this game is particularly relevant for teaching any content that discusses cognitive load theory (CLT) or related principles. For example, CLT is a component of cross-cultural effectiveness taught in a global leadership course, and this experience provides an illustration to students of how their behavior becomes more error-prone and their reliance on heuristics and diminished conscious critical thought occurs in high-stress environments. Further, CLT can be applied to cognitive, social and IO psychology curriculum.

Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes would also be useful in a course that covers elements of intergroup stress and conflict. Often, educators wish to create an environment in their courses of some degree of simulated intergroup conflict, but in a manner that is not harmful to students beyond the end of the activity or severe enough to disrupt the class environment. This activity provides just such a balance, fostering an authentic element of conflict between participants but easily being able to be debriefed and processed in a healthy manner.

Finally, this activity would be helpful for leadership educators who are seeking to teach communication in stressful environments. This could take the form of crisis communication, emergency services communication or content associated with crucial conversations. In all cases, faculty would be attempting to simulate the stressors of a challenging communication environment without putting students in any real danger or creating any lasting harm, and this simulated game environment is ideal for that type of interaction.

Reflections and limitations

Our primary reflection is that this game provides a good balance between fun engagement and rigorous learning. While deploying this game in several leadership and psychology courses, students have shown excitement and enthusiasm about playing the game, especially when we have built up some anticipation for it while discussing CLT or other content in the classes leading up to the experience. The time goes quickly, and you might find yourself needing to calm down and guide students to engage in reflective discussion if they are enjoying playing the game.

There are some limitations to this teaching tool. As previously stated, this game is not an educational tool, and therefore educators will need to be intentional about creating the learning environment. Furthermore, this activity may only be useful in traditional, in-person classroom settings. While it is possible to play this game remotely via a video conferencing platform like Zoom, it is clunky and not recommended. In addition, the game demands synchronous engagement, so it is not appropriate for asynchronous online classes or other experiences where people are unable to gather at the same time.

Recommendations for further scholarship

This is a simple pedagogical tool, but one that we have found to be effective and engaging with students. Beyond our experience, though, there are several opportunities for further fruitful scholarly pursuits related to this work. One of the open questions related to the use of simulations is the transferability of learning to other circumstances. In this case, that means considering how students who experienced a cognitive overload situation in this game environment are then able to transfer that learning to their effective behavior in real-world circumstances. Given the wide range of simulation platforms, their different rigor and application in educational environments, and the host of different outcomes that educators pursue in using these tools, there are a wide range of outcomes likely to emerge. Scholars and practitioners would benefit from having a clearer sense of the experiences that create greater transferability of learning for students.

Another line of productive inquiry would concern how different student constituencies respond to this and other forms of simulations as an educational practice. We know that students have different learning styles, but little work has been done on matching pedagogical tool selection to specific characteristics of the students. Educators are left to use their experience in making these selections, and better criteria for selection are warranted.