This instructor-facing submission outlines the implementation of a client-led project-based learning (PBL) model in an upper-level game and simulation development course. The project centered on developing functional AR simulations for real clients. Drawing on professional documentation through Game Design Documents (GDDs), authentic feedback cycles, and self-efficacy theory, students experienced iterative development with external stakeholders. Survey data and focus-group feedback revealed increases in student motivation, enjoyment, and self-efficacy compared to previous faculty-led iterations. The submission includes a conceptual pedagogy model (Figure 1 in the paper), adaptation pathways for different instructional contexts, and recommendations to integrate client feedback structures without formal external partners.
This OER was intended primarily for upper-level or capstone courses in game and simulation development where students already have foundational programming experience and perhaps some exposure to game engines. Instructors adopting the full client-led model should be comfortable with Unity, C#, and basic version control practices (e.g., GitHub or Unity Version Control), or should plan to collaborate with technical support staff or teaching assistants. In contexts where instructors and/or students are less experienced with XR or Unity, the same project structure can be implemented using desktop-only simulations or simpler game development environments such as Code.org or GameMaker, while preserving the client-facing, reflection, and documentation components.
This Open Educational Resource (OER) engages students through meaningful, relevant content, and well-structured collaborative learning, two evidence-based practices shown to broaden participation and improve learning outcomes [16]. The targeted course was an upper-level course in game and simulation development in which students created an original interactive experience using Unity mixed reality, specifically Augmented Reality (AR) technologies. It followed a course on computer game design that allows students to create an original game level with free rein of design choices. In the studied course, students worked in teams to develop simulations for real clients (in this case an engineering professor and Instructional Design consultants as lead clients). Each team had a specific area of focus, such as a process or backend, and was expected to deliver a working prototype, a Game Design Document (GDD), and a presentation. The project was relevant to students’ future professional contexts, fostering student-centered assessments and iterative feedback loops that support self-efficacy and motivation. The course provided meaningful and relevant content as students tackled real-world AR challenges aligned with the course objectives, increasing intrinsic motivation by linking tasks to professional practice. In addition, structured collaborative learning occurred as teams rotated roles and maintained living GDDs, promoting accountability and peer instruction. Furthermore, there was an opportunity for student-centered assessments, as playtest reflections and GDD revisions allowed choice and self-regulation, tailoring feedback to individual learning paths.
Differentiation strategies include offering scaffolded tutorials on Unity and GitHub for students with varying technical backgrounds, and allowing alternate deliverables (e.g., video walkthroughs) for those needing accommodations. Such strategies fit into the background of cyclic on-boarding, prototype development, playtesting, feedback integration, and final delivery. Typical team roles included a client liaison or project manager, a lead programmer, an interaction or User-Interface (UI) designer, and a documentation lead responsible for maintaining the GDD, with responsibilities rotating as appropriate so that students could experience multiple perspectives in the development workflow. This sequence is particularly well-suited to upper-level or capstone courses, and instructors in earlier courses may choose to adopt a subset of phases or simplified scenarios while preserving the same engagement structure. The pedagogical model this sequence examines as presented in Figure 1 draws on self-efficacy theory and mirrors professional development workflows, positioning students as active designers collaborating with real clients to achieve educational engagement with the goal of confidence and persistence.