Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Intro

With the rapid expansion of the esports industry, many esports training programs and academies have emerged. According to research, esports may lead to cognitive, metacognitive, academic and professional competencies if appropriately supported (Adachi & Willoughby, 2013). However, there is no systematic curriculum or guidance on how to identify and support these competencies through esports training.

Methods

This paper conducts a systematic review of literature from the learning sciences to provide a systematic rubric of competencies and instructional approaches to support them through esports training. The competencies that may be supported through esports are mapped along the game design principles as categorized along Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics (MDA) framework. Current training programs were analyzed to identify training approaches that can support these competencies across different contexts.

Results

There is a wide range of cognitive, self-regulation, social, academic, and career competencies that were found to be supported through video games. However, the development of such competencies depend on the availability of the learning opportunities and appropriate support provided to engage these opportunities, thus requiring a systematic framework for esports training. The training approaches that can be implemented to support diverse competencies from esports training, whether amateur or professional, are varied in modality, style, and structure.

Conclusion

The goal of this study is to inform the esports industry more largely, as well as the trainers, researchers, and designers with systematic and research-informed approaches to support future esports athletes, both professional and amateurs. Learning from the traditional field of athletic training, esports training should take more systematic approaches to design training curriculum and programs, as well as preparing the trainers.

Keywords

esports competencies learning sciences training systematic review

The Need for Systematic Approach for Esports Training

The esports industry has experienced a significant growth, with a value of over $1 billion in 2021, which led to the emergence of various esports training programs for professional athletes and amateur players. These programs differ in context (e.g., higher education, professional team, afterschool programs, MOOC) and target audience (e.g., age groups, amateur vs. professional players) (refer to Table 3). However, despite the high level of interest and investment, there is currently no evidence of implementing research-based foundation for effective esports training (Nagorsky & Wiemeyer, 2020).

Table 2.

eSports Training Programs from Competitive Analysis.

Competency	Skills	Description of Skills	Supportive Game Design
Cognitive Skills	Physicality	Good hand-eye coordination, skillful and precise use of controller to select and command, execute learned actions in the right sequence	M: Physical Actions (Larsen, 2022) D: Actions (e.g., shooter games) (Larsen, 2022)
	Information Processing	Increased information processing speed with accuracy, visuospatial information processing and response transferable to context outside the game (Bavelier et al., 2011)	M: Space, e.g., first-person view, 3D spaces (Nagorsky & Wiemeyer, 2020; Uttal et al., 2013), Physical Actions (Green & Bavelier, 2012) D: Actions (Dye, Green, & Bavelier, 2009a; Green & Bavelier, 2012)
	Reasoning	Interpretation and evaluation of the information processed to make logical inferences, predictions,and reach a conclusion	M: Objects, Attributes, and States (a complex changing web of combinations and possibilities), Actions (e.g. mental actions like memory, observation, and puzzle solving) (Grimes & Feenberg, 2009) D: Complex dynamics (Grimes & Feenberg, 2009)
	Attention	Neural processing and efficiency, effective/efficient/accurate allocation of attentional resources	M: Physical Actions (Bavelier et al., 2012) D: Actions (e.g., Shooter games) (Bavelier et al., 2012)
	Decision Making	Timely and effective evaluation of situation and response, selection of optimal strategies	M: Objects attributes states, physical & mental actions (Stafford & Dewar, 2014) D: Actions, Resource management, Role-playing, simulation, Human interactions (Stafford & Dewar, 2014) A: Narrative, Challenge, Fellowship
	Problem Solving	Gather and evaluation information, options, develop and evaluate solutions based on evidence	M: Objects attributes states, physical & mental action (Prensky, 2012) D: Role-playing (Adachi & Willoughby, 2013), Human interactions A: Fantasy, narrative, challenge
	Literacy	Manipulate various digital tools and media, environments	M: Space, Objects attributes states (Nagorsky & Wiemeyer, 2020) D: Human interactions (Nagorsky & Wiemeyer, 2020)
Self Regulation	Meta Cognition	Set goals and self-reflect for improvements, self-track and analyze performance data, identify mistake and find solutions, search for external resources to develop retainable knowledge	M: Objects attributes states (Kleinman, Gayle, & Seif El-Nasr, 2021), Physical & mental actions D: Actions, Resource management, Human interactions LO: information in the gaming communities (Larsen, 2022)
	Emotional Regulation	Modulate negative emotions, execute and thrive under pressure, utilize emotional regulation strategies like re-appraisal to self-care and facilitate teamwork	M: Objects attributes states, Actions (Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014; Larsen, 2022), D: Actions (Larsen, 2022), Role-playing, Simulation (Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014), Human interactions (Larsen, 2022) A: Sensation, narrative, challenge
	Motivation	Look upon past failures to continue playing at a high level, see challenge as an opportunity for growth, experiment persistently to improve on weaknesses and solve problems	M: Objects attributes states, Physical actions D: Actions, Human interactions A: Challenge (Himmelstein, Liu, & Shapiro, 2017)
Social	Communication	Effectively cooperate with others (e.g. verbalize mistakes, simplify communications, accurately communicate states and locations), adopt proactive communication strategies	M: Objects attributes states D: Actions, Human Interactions (Cheung & Huang, 2011; Leavitt, Keegan, & Clark, 2016) A: Fellowship LO: Teammates from different cultural backgrounds (Larsen, 2022)
	Collaboration	Coordinate with teammates, take on different tasks to achieve the team goal, keep each other on the same page with common awareness, help each other frequently	M: Objects attributes states D: Actions, Human interactions (Cheung & Huang, 2011) A: Fellowship (Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014)
	Leadership	Establish roles within the team, understand the team’s traits, use each other’s strengths and weaknesses to maximize effectiveness, aid the team with emotional support, communicate regularly to grow stronger team bonds, provide the entire team with goals	D: Actions, Human Interactions (Himmelstein, Liu, & Shapiro, 2017) A: Fellowship
	Understanding others	Look upon past failures to continue playing at a high level, see challenge as an opportunity for growth, experiment persistently to improve on weaknesses and solve problems	M: Objects Attributes States, physical actionsD: Actions, Human interactions (Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014; Larsen, 2022)
Academic	STEM	Spatial skills, apply STEM techniques to analyze game situations (e.g. interpret and reason expressions, model relationships between different variables)	M: Space (Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014), objects attributes states (Anderson et al., 2018)D: Actions, resource management (Anderson et al., 2018)LO: Classrooms (Anderson et al., 2018)
Academic	Expression and Language	Engage in argument from evidence, construct viable arguments and critique reasoning of others, obtain, evaluate, and communicate information	M: Objects attributes states (Steinkuehler, 2007)D: Role playing, collaborationA: Fantasy, narrative, fellowship, expressionLO: Classrooms (Lee et al., 2020)
Career	Entrepreneurship	Develop knowledge and skills such as creativity and innovation	D: Resource management, virtual goods, leadership (Anderson et al., 2018)A: FellowshipLO: Beyond gaming
	Content creation	Use digital tools to produce media like video, texts, images, etc to communicate thoughts, and spread media through digital platforms	M: Objects attributes states, physical & mental actionsD: Action, role playing, collaborationA: Fantasy, narrative, expressionLO: Out-of-game content creation (Anderson et al., 2018)
	Event organization	Handle the online/offline competitions and marketing events by brainstorming, setting goals and objectives, creating event framework, bidding, budgeting, registering, managing, and conducting post-event evaluation	LO: Insights and resources in the esports field (Hedlund, Fried, & Smith, 2020; Taylor, 2012)

Increasingly, empirical studies are examining esports from various disciplines, such as media studies, informatics, business, sports science, and cognitive science. However, little attention has been paid to developing competencies through effective support in esports training (Reitman, Anderson-Coto, Wu, Lee, & Steinkuehler, 2020). Effective instruction and training require well-defined goals of the training that consist of knowledge and skills, or competencies, that are necessary to become good at playing games. A research-informed curriculum should also be designed to support the training of these competencies (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). Trainers should understand the necessary competencies and how to support their development across games with different cognitive, physical, and socioemotional characteristics. Currently, there is no systematic approach to identify the goals, curriculum, and strategies for esports training (Nagorsky & Wiemeyer, 2020), and current programs primarily focus on developing cognitive strategies that allow players to immediately improve their game ranking without considering the complexity of necessary competencies and ways to support them.

In comparison, the field of athletic sports began a systematic approach to train athletes and their trainers as early as the 1950s in the US when the National Athletic Trainers’ Association (NATA) was created (Delforge & Behnke, 1999). The early efforts included development of a model curriculum to guide athletic trainers with knowledge and skills necessary for scientific approaches to training athletes into professional level. The curriculum included a wide range of foundational skills and knowledge on physiology and psychology of athletes, and the skills necessary to continue developing as a professional athlete. Such systematic and research-based education of trainers and the subsequent training of athletes spread widely across all fields of sports. While there are some controversies over the nature and scope of the theory, deliberate training as a theoretical framework proposed by Ericsson et al. (1993) emphasizes the need for systematic approach to training and practice in developing expertise in a field. This applies to training expertise in all fields, including sports, art, music, chess and more.

Similarly, esports training should take a systematic approach to identify the competencies necessary to become expert gamers and trainers, design and implement esports training to support the development of in-game competencies that can be transferred beyond gameplay. These competencies may include cognitive, metacognitive, and socioemotional skills necessary for successful gameplay, as well as academic and professional success (Adachi & Willoughby, 2013).

Research Questions

This paper addresses the need for a more systematic approach to esports training by asking two questions. First, what are the competencies that can be supported through video gameplay? Second, when and how can we expect the competencies to be developed?

We address these questions by presenting a rubric of competencies that can inform the design, implementation, and evaluation of esports training, as well as trainer education. The rubric was constructed through comprehensive review of empirical research. The rubric identifies the competencies that can be supported through video gameplay based on the game design. Then, an overview of training approaches and strategies are presented to inform the design of esports training and the trainer education.

Theoretical Framework

Development of a competency, or learning, requires a particular experience that engages one in processing or practicing the particular competency that is being developed. Similarly, competencies developed through video gameplay would be supported through the gaming experience that arise from the particular game design. Since there is a wide variety of video game genres, each with its own unique characteristics and complex mechanics which could elicit different kinds of competencies, a theoretical framework (Table 1

Table 1.

Theoretical Framework: MDA & LO.

Design Category	Design Principles	Description of Game Design Component
Mechanics	Space	Includes visually rich three-dimensional navigational spaces
	Objects, Attributes, and States	Includes diverse and complicated features, objects, and variables that create a complex, changing web of combinations and possibilities; or an AI system that controls objects
	Actions	Elicits physical actions, involving strength, dexterity, coordination, physical endurance, and reflexes
	Actions	Elicits mental actions, involving memory, observation, and puzzle solving
Dynamics	Action	Includes diverse dynamics related with action, excitement, and fast-paced play requiring split-second decision-making and acute attention to unpredictable changes in context
	Resource management	Represents several dynamics of resource management, and construction
	Virtual goods	Includes dynamics of acquisition, collection, and use of virtual goods or resources
	Role-playing	Represents several dynamics which support role-playing, such as fantasy or science fiction, avatars, and exploration
	Simulation	Represents the means by which players can simulate scenarios inspired by real life
	Progression	Represents the means of progressing towards accumulating power or learning
	Human interaction	Engages competition, collaboration, leadership
Aesthetics	Sensation	Leads to sensory experiences including pleasure, fear, stress, joy, happiness
	Fantasy	Allow for make-believe, engage players into its world and give them the tools to fulfill their fantasy
	Narrative	Engage in drama, storytelling and the curiosity toward the ending
	Challenge	Engage in activities including avoiding obstacles, puzzles, tricks
	Fellowship	Provide social framework for collaboration on tasks, engagement with larger gamer communities to exchange information and share knowledge, tightening bonds and friendships
	Expression	Opportunity for self-discovery, creation and expression using tools
Learning Opportunities	In-game and out-of-game information that support players with learning opportunities, e.g., knowledge-construction outside of gameplay (e.g. forum), games that were developed to specifically support learning, gamified learning experiences, and curriculum that integrates gameplay

) was developed to categorize the game design components - rubric of esports competencies.

Rubric of eSports Competencies

In this paper, game design components are categorized into four categories: Mechanics (M), Dynamics (D), Aesthetics (A), and Learning Opportunities (LO). With the analysis and mapping of competencies across game design components, the rubric can be applied to any video games to identify competencies that can be developed through deliberate training with the game. The framework builds on the well-known Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics (MDA) framework developed by Hunicke, LeBlanc & Zubek (2004), with the addition of a category for Learning Opportunities. This framework was developed to guide systematic review and categorization of competencies that were observed in relation to the game design in previous studies. In other words, for each of the competencies that were discussed, game design in relation to MDALO were identified. Each of the categories consist of sub-components as synthesized from Hunicke et al. (2004) and additional sources when necessary .

Mechanics describes “the particular components of the game, at the level of data representation and algorithms.” (Hunicke et al., 2004, p.2) In other words, it is the rules and actions given to the player, and the core of the games from designers’ standpoint. For the sub-categories of mechanics, this paper takes three categories from Schell's taxonomy of game mechanics (2008). Schell dissects game mechanics at the most basic level, which applies to most video games: 1) Space (Granic et al., 2014); 2) Objects, Attributes, and States (Larsen, 2022); 3) Actions.

Dynamics describes “the run-time behavior of the mechanics acting on player inputs and each others’ outputs over time,” (Hunicke et al., 2004, p.2) or simply, what happens during the game play when the mechanics are in use. Tondello, Wehbe, Orji, Ribeiro & Nacke (2017)’s taxonomy of game elements are used to define a fine-grained dynamics system. The taxonomy provides sufficient detail to map out the game elements from players' perspective to the corresponding competencies. Thus, this paper synthesizes seven sub-categories under dynamics: 1) Action (Granic et al., 2014); 2) Resource management; 3) Virtual goods; 4) Role-playing; 5) Simulation; 6) Progression, and; 7) Human interaction.

Aesthetics describes “the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player, when she interacts with the game system” (Hunicke et al., 2004, p.2). This paper keeps six categories in Hunicke et al. 's taxonomy of aesthetics: 1) Sensation; 2) Fantasy; 3) Narrative; 4) Challenge; 5) Fellowship, and; 6) Expression.

Learning opportunities were added to the rubric to categorize game experiences that were designed to support development of certain competencies. This category is distinct from MDA as these three categories were not necessarily developed to foster certain competencies. Learning Opportunities include knowledge-construction outside of gameplay (e.g. forum), games that were developed to specifically support learning, gamified learning experiences, and curriculum that integrates gameplay.

Rubric of Competencies

Description of the Rubric

Based on the literature review and analysis of the empirical research, the rubric maps out the competencies that could be developed through playing video games based on their game design elements. The rubric could serve as a reference for determining learning objectives for future esports training programs. Specifically, the rubric summarizes a list of competencies that were found to be supported by video gameplay in relation to the game design components that led to such competencies. The relationship between the game design components and competencies is not rigid. Instead, it shows a type of game design that is more likely to help the development of certain competencies. The competencies are not dependent on one specific design factor, but rests on a mix of several factors (design mechanics, support, context of video gameplay etc.), and the outcome depends on multiple factors in real-life implementation. Table 2 illustrates a summary of the mapping competencies with supportive game design. The full version of the rubric is included in the Appendix.

Table 3.

Summary: Mapping of Competencies with Supportive Game Design.

Program Type	Target Audience	Training
After School program (Esports Coaching, 2022; GENEX CAMP, 2022; Spire 2022)	middle school & high school students	- curriculum-guided- gameplay review- individual and team coaching sessions
MOOC certificate course (Become a ProGamer, 2022; The Complete Guide to LOL, 2022)	amateur esports players who want to become professional esports players	- informational materials through pre-recorded videos
Higher Education (eSports Camp, 2022)	anyone who are interested in careers in esports field	- structured schedule- gameplay review
eSports Training Center (Training Programs, 2022)	amateur esports players who want to become professional esports players	- structured schedule- gameplay review- assigning practices and drills
Online eSports Training Platform (Esports Training, 2022; GWOOP, 2022; Skill Capped, 2022; Virkayu, 2022)	amateur esports players who want to become professional esports players	- instructional videos about game strategies- specialized practices

The following section takes a closer look at each competency, as well as how specific game design components and strategies were found to support the competency.

Cognitive Competencies

Cognitive competencies refer to the mental skills that could help gamers perceive and process information in the environment to perform subsequent reactions and actions. Bavelier, Green, Han, Renshaw, Merzenich & Gentile (2011) described video games as a highly motivating context of training that can elicit transferrable changes in neural functioning and cognitive performance. When engaging with video games, gamers are expected to show enhancement in the following six types of cognitive competencies: Physicality, Information Processing, Reasoning, Attention, Decision-Making, Problem-Solving , and Literacy .

Physicality in esports is often defined as having good coordination to engage with various controllers skillfully and precisely to select and command units (Nagorsky & Wiemeyer, 2020), and execute learned patterns of actions in the right sequence (Larsen, 2022). This competency is best supported by games that have physical actions as the core of its game mechanics, requiring players to constantly practice their strength, dexterity, coordination, physical endurance, and reflexes. Looking from the perspective of game dynamics, what comes along with physical action is usually fast-moving gameplay experiences that trigger players’ split-second decision-making and imperative attention to react to sudden shifts (Granic et al., 2014). The most common example would be multiplayer shooter games. In-game physical actions, such as choosing or buying equipment, shifting weapons, aiming at targets, shooting and throwing, moving under attack, all require players to press a series of keys in a correct sequence, and oftentimes simultaneously with precise controlling the route of mouse (Larsen, 2022). Li et al. (2016) study found that action gamers possess better visuomotor control than non-action gamers with less precision error, larger response amplitude, and shorter response delay. What's more, training non-action gamers with as little as five hours of action games could result in greatly improved visuomotor control that lasted for at least two to four months. Another interesting finding was that while action video games more generally can enhance players’ visuomotor control, specific genres of games like driving and first-person shooter games (FPS), might have different effects on the sensorimotor system and thus could be used in different training scenarios.

Information Processing skills refer to enhanced speed of information processing without sacrificing accuracy (Dye, Green & Bavelier, 2009b, as cited in Himmelstein, Liu & Shapiro, 2017), improved mental rotation skills and increased spatial resolution in visual processing (Granic et al., 2014), as well as transferable and lasting spatial skills (Uttal, Meadow, Tipton, Hand, Alden & Warren, 2013). Action games, especially shooter games, are proven to effectively enhance the above competencies of players. As found in review of research on implications of video games (Bediou, Adams, Mayer, Tipton, Green & Bavelier, 2018; Granic et. al., 2014), studies showed that non-gamers assigned to play shooter games for the same amount of time demonstrated improved mental rotation ability, increased spatial resolution in visual processing, and faster and more precise attention allocation compared to control participants who engaged with other types of video games. The meta-analysis by Uttal et al. (2013) also proved that shooter games can improve retainable and transferrable spatial skills as much as what deliberately designed high school and university-level courses can do. Despite these high level game mechanics and dynamics, there are also smaller game design elements that can exert direct benefits to one's spatial skills. For example, video games with three-dimensional spaces, and more importantly, a first-person view, would offer more training in spatial orientation skills than games that only allow observation from a bird's eye view (Nagorsky and Wiemeyer, 2020).

Reasoning Skills refers to the ability to interpret and evaluate the information to make logical inferences, predictions, and quickly jump to a conclusion. For example, theory crafting is a technique that some players would adopt in complex games like League of Legends (LOL) or DOTA2 (Grimes & Feenberg, 2009). It is knowing the precise values of game objects, then using them to reason and reach a conclusion to determine certain actions, like how many rounds to fire with a particular weapon to defeat a certain opponent in a specific situation. If the reasoning process is erroneous, it would affect the result of the game.

Attention Skills refers to measurable and generalizable changes in neural processing and efficiency, and the ability to allocate attentional resources more efficiently and accurately, like focusing on key factors and filtering out irrelevant information (Bavelier et al., 2012 as cited in Bediou et al., 2018). Again, engaging with in-game physical actions helps with measurable improvements in players’ attention skills. Bavelier et al. (2012) suggested that people who play shooter games have better attention allocation skills. The functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of gamers show that their frontoparietal networks in their brain were less active when engaging with a pattern-detection task than non-gamers.

Decision-Making Skills are presented as being able to evaluate situations and act in-time (Larsen, 2022), use tactics like theory crafting to analyze and search for optimal strategies (Paul, 2011). Engaging in games with complex objects, attributes, and states is particularly beneficial in promoting decision-making skills since players need to continuously analyze various factors in current situations to make rational decisions. Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA) and Strategy Video Games with dynamic action provide opportunities for practicing this skill. For example, in games like DOTA2, players need to assess and choose how to enhance the talents of their chosen hero, with the consideration of heroes and playstyles of their team and the opposing team (Stafford & Dewar, 2014).

Problem-Solving Skills allows players to approach gameplay strategically, gather information based on evidence from past experience and intuitions, evaluate options from a wide range of possible solutions, and sometimes change formulated plans based on changing goals (Prensky, 2012 as cited by Granic et al., 2014). Games with puzzles, such as those using memorization and analytical skills to identify the optimal path from starting point to finish line, or to figure out a complex sequence of actions to reach a desired outcome, are effective tools for improving one's problem-solving abilities (Granic et al., 2014). Strategic games, like Role-Playing Game (RPG), are also proven to have positive influence on players’ self-evaluation of problem solving skills. In Adachi and Willoughby (2013)’s study, teenagers who play RPG games reported a higher perception of problem solving ability and predicted higher academic performance. However, to what extent the problem-solving skills can transfer to real-world situations still needs further research.

Literacy Skills specifically refer to skills necessary to effectively handle various digital tools and media. In-game opportunities include game installation, system and connection maintenance, controller and communication tools usage, troubleshooting practice, navigation in game spaces/user interface (Nagorsky and Wiemeyer, 2020). Also, esports often engage players with argumentative practices to debate on actions and quests that lead to more traditional literacy skills (Alagoz, 2013).

Self-regulation Competencies

Self-regulation is the ability to modulate behavior to achieve long-term goals over time and across contexts, including managing attention, thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (Uzun & Kilis, 2019). Bandura (1986) divided the process into three components: (a) self-observation or behavioral monitoring; (b) self-evaluation of progress; and (c) self-reaction, including both affective and tangible consequences. In other words, one needs to first recognize and track their status, reflect on and assess it, then take actions to achieve a higher goal. There are three kinds of outstanding self-regulation competencies that can be developed deliberately through training and gaming in esports: Meta-cognition, Emotional regulation, and Motivation .

In esports, having good meta-cognition means that one could plan, analyze and set goals for in-game performance improvements (Kleinman et al., 2021), identify how and why a mistake was made and find the right way to fix it (Himmelstein et al., 2017), make sense of the performance data to engage in self-tracking and -reflecting behaviors (Rapp, 2018), and search for external resources to develop retainable knowledge (Golub, 2010). Certain game designs facilitate such skills. An example would be LOL where players can monitor and use data like kills, creep score, gold, experiences, and other statistics to evaluate their real-time performance and plan for the next action. Its post-game statistics present performance data for all players, offering an opportunity to reflect on one’s performance. Gaming communities in platforms such as Twitch, Youtube, or other forums are popular places where players seek for tips or learn from watching videos of professional players (Larsen, 2022). Of diverse meta-cognitive skills, the ability to analyze mistakes is important. In Himmelstein et al. (2017)’s research, all participants identified analyzing mistakes as a crucial skill to improve their game performance. They would not only analyze mistakes during gameplay and make adjustments right away, but would also watch replay videos to further analyze opportunities for improvements.

Emotional regulation is another crucial self-regulation competency for esports gamers. It includes executing and thriving under pressure by modulating negative emotions during a game (Larsen, 2022), and utilizing emotional regulation strategies like re-appraisal (Granic et al., 2014) to self-care and facilitate teamwork (Kou & Gui, 2020). In highly competitive and strategic games, players have to constrain their emotions and fight against emotional impulses to postpone reactions on many occasions. For example, minimizing negative impact of the current loss and focusing on the ultimate goal, or resisting the temptation to perform a certain action that would be satisfying in the short-term but would interfere with a higher goal (e.g. when lying in ambush, shooting an enemy too early might risk oneself being spotted by the opposing team). Without the ability to recognize and compose one’s emotions, the player might react without thinking about the consequences of a hasty action and can result in losses (Larsen, 2022). Another well-known emotion-regulation technique that is essential for puzzle solving games is re-appraisal, re-assessment of one’s ability and the ever-changing situation to address the most current problem (Gross & John, 2003). For instance, a puzzle game called Portal 2 requires its players to use physics-based rule structures to solve complex maze-like puzzles. Once players have become familiar with a certain puzzle, the rules would change significantly. This challenges players to leave previous understandings and adapt to the new system while in confusion and sometimes anxiety. Games that involve role-playing, narrations, or real-life simulation might also support emotional regulation skills, especially in children, where children can experiment with social situations and different emotional reactions without having to face real-world outcomes (Piaget, 1962).

Finally, motivation refers to the capacity to continue playing at a high level despite challenges, see challenge as an opportunity for growth (Himmelstein et al., 2017), and experiment persistently to improve on weaknesses and solve problems (Granic et al., 2014). Motivation is necessary and particularly important to the professional gamers. Video games can be an ideal learning environment for developing intellectual skills since it provides immediate feedback to players’ action, which serves as strong motivation at the moment (Granic et al., 2014). In the long run, to continue growing or even play at a professional level, players need to maintain their desire to keep improving and competing (Lee & Schoenstedt, 2011).

Social Competencies

Social competency is defined as a capacity to maintain effective social interaction through social skills, sociometric status, relationships, and functional outcomes (Halle & Darling-Churchill, 2016). In the context of esports, professional gamers display four most common types of competencies, including communication , collaboration , leadership , and understanding others.

Effective communication in esports is instrumental in cooperating with others (Tang, 2018) as fellowship plays an important role in esports games. Esports games provide a social framework for people to take different roles to collaborate on various game tasks. Cho, Tsaasan, & Steinkuehler (2019) observed noticeable changes in how students communicate from the beginning of the season to the end in a high school esports league. They found that students learned to adopt proactive communication strategies such as shotcalling, anticipatory analysis, individual support, and moral statements. In a study, esports players reported the significance of effective communication such as using techniques for verbalizing mistakes and simplifying communication to increase the efficiency of communication between teammates (Himmelstein et al., 2017). In addition, communication skills can be transferred outside the gaming context into players’ daily lives (Nielsen & Hanghøj, 2019). In the competitive, collaborative, and fast-paced environment, players are required to adapt to in-game multimodal communication channels, from voice and chat channels to functions like “ping” to accurately convey their states and locations in a non-verbal manner to succeed in games (Cheung & Huang, 2011; Leavitt et al., 2016). The exposure to teammates from different backgrounds and locations throughout the world in and outside of games also pose challenges while supporting players’ cross-cultural communication skills (Freeman & Wohn, 2019).

Collaboration in esports refers to the ability to coordinate with teammates, take on different tasks to achieve the team goal (Fuks et al., 2008), keep each other on the same page with common awareness (Musick, Zhang, McNeese, Freeman & Hridi, 2021), and help each other frequently (Freeman & Wohn, 2019). In collaborative games, even with exceptional individual performance, players must recognize the value of teamwork and support each other in execution. This is especially important in fast-paced games which requires all team members to be on the same page and gain common awareness (Musick et al., 2021). It can happen before the game when the team forms and sets up strategies, during the game when the team coordinates actions to win, and after the game when personal relationships are strengthened to improve game performance (Freeman & Wohn, 2019). With games specifically designed to encourage supporting behaviors, players may even gain prosocial skills that can generalize to everyday situations (Ewoldsen et al., 2012). Granic et al. (2014) found that children who participated in more prosocial games at the start of the school year were more inclined to cooperate and help each other later that year.

Leadership in esports share some similarities with understanding others and collaboration. However, leadership emphasizes leading the efforts to establishing roles within the team, understanding the team’s traits, using each other’s strengths and weaknesses to maximize effectiveness, aiding the team with emotional support, communicating regularly to grow stronger bonds and trust, providing the entire team with goals (Himmelstein et al., 2017), and execution and communication of timely decision making (Muscik et al., 2021). Also, leaders develop and facilitate shared language and mental models across the team.

Understanding others in esports differ from other social competencies in that it not only means understanding teammates' moves, but also understanding and even predicting opponents’ actions by scouting and analyzing opponents’ weaknesses (Himmelstein et al., 2017). Further, it includes competencies to prevent oneself from being predicted (Larsen, 2022). It is an important ability in social cognition and can be fostered by action games, role-playing games, and games with human interactions.

Academic Competencies

Counter to the common belief, video games can nurture academic competencies if given the right contexts of implementation and support. Gamers, coaches, and analysts in the esports industry must exercise similar expertise as in the field of math, data science, concept learning, or STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) more generally. For example, understanding polynomial equations, interpreting expressions, reasoning with expressions, interpolating functions within context, and building functions to model relationships between different variables are necessary to be successful with increasingly complex gameplay (Granic et al., 2014). It is also common for gamers to use STEM techniques to analyze game situations. Players approach strategic games like LoL in data-driven ways, like using statistics provided by online third-party analytical tools to analyze the play. Roles like theory crafters demonstrate even more devotion in these skills. They take the game mechanisms, rules, variable values in, dissect the codes and equations, use augments to test which combination of mechanics would be the best fit in different scenarios and identify the most effective strategies. Wai et al. (2010), as cited in Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014)’s 25-year research shows that academic success in STEM subjects can be predicted by spatial abilities. Spatial abilities are essential information processing competencies that can be strengthened by action games, especially shooter games.

Diverse competencies related to English language art learning or language expressions can also be cultivated through opportunities in and out of games. These competencies can be fostered through verbal analysis and content creation for narrative-based games, engaging in argument and discussion based on evidence from game mechanics, construct viable arguments and critique reasoning of others, obtain, evaluate, and communicate information in collaborative gameplay. For Massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) players, the experience usually involves shifting in different narratives inside the game, and also creating and consuming online fandom content outside the game, which both require extensive text reading and comprehension (Steinkuehler, 2007 as cited in Mills, 2015). Some educators have integrated games to a high school English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum that uses esports as an instructional tool for literacy development (Lee, Wu, Lee, Fleming, Ruben, Turner, Brown, Steinkuehler, 2020). In this curriculum, students in the 9th and 10th grade explore game design elements to understand the narrative structure, while 11th and 12th grade students dive deeper into rhetoric and writing practices through entrepreneurship and marketing simulations in esports business.

Career Competencies

Engaging in esports as gamers as well as stakeholders in the industry provides opportunities to develop diverse career competencies that can be applied to a wide range of professions.

Through gameplay, esports engage and develop players’ tangible skills that are crucial to business management and entrepreneurship such as managing and constructing resources, leadership, creativity, and innovative thinking. Anderson et al. (2018) observed that gamers often engage in informal learning opportunities such as in-person workshops and online clinics during, launching and managing their own game-related content such as through streaming channels. Such content creation require multifaceted skills including content planning and research, using digital tools to produce media including tutorial video, fandom creations (texts, images, etc.), and live streaming, use of digital platforms to communicate thoughts, investigation, evaluation, and creative content while implementing strategic plans for monetization. The core competencies underlying content creation are also developed through more general gameplay as players engage in role playing and fantasy where they are actively engaged in developing and engaging with the narratives, and observation, comprehension, and reaction to complex game contexts. Lastly, skills and knowledge such as competitive rivalry, staged performance, institutionalized practice behind event organization can be fostered through playing video games (Taylor, 2012), as well as from following and monitoring esports competitions. The skill of event management is also transferable to different industries in that the ability to plan, bid, budget, and evaluate are generalizable in marketing events in other fields (Hedlund et al., 2020).

Training Approaches

Providing effective esport training requires research-informed definition of learning goals delivered through supportive methods of training. To address the question of How can we support competencies through video gameplay?, a synthesis of training approaches and strategies was developed through a competitive analysis. (see Table 3) A total of 12 training programs were selected for analysis based on the diversity in goals, platforms, format, and learners, based on a search using keywords such as “esports”, “training”, “curriculum”, “coaching”, “bootcamp”.

For each of the selected programs, the official website, information handbook, course syllabus, and course material (when available) were reviewed to identify the learning objectives/competencies, modality, learning format, target audience.

Modality & Learning Format/Technology

Esports training is offered in diverse forms and modalities. Learning modality refers to how (delivery mode) and when (conveying method) the program is delivered. The delivery mode includes online, in-person, or a blended (mix of both) modality. The conveying method includes synchronous (meeting at specific times and locations) or asynchronous modality.

Online synchronous learning programs in the esports field include live bootcamp and individual online coaching sessions/courses where instructors can engage with students at the same time (Spire Esports Camp, 2022; Training Programs, 2022). Those online sessions often use live streaming services and video conference applications such as Twitch, Discord, and Zoom to deliver their training. The fully online courses are generally more accessible to students regardless of where they live. Online synchronous learning format not only allows students to ask questions and get answers in real-time but also provides instructors the opportunities to understand students’ progress and adjust sessions accordingly. While there is a vast amount of esports instructional videos online (Esports Training, 2022; Virkayu, 2022), the opportunities to receive feedback for personalized support and learning may be limited. Depending on the size of the training session, students may not have sufficient opportunities to communicate with their peers and their trainers informally. For example, students’ messages may be easily neglected by trainers with the bombardment of information from games and students’ communication channels during the training session.

Online asynchronous learning is one of the most common training approaches that amateur players choose to train their gameplay skills for its flexibility, affordability, and convenience. Common online, asynchronous esports learning include online courses (Become a ProGamer, 2022; The Complete Guide to LOL, 2022), professional esports training video platforms (Esports Training, 2022), general esports cognitive skills training platforms (GWOOP, 2022), and informal esports learning videos on Youtube and Twitch (Virkayu, 2022). Students who adopt this training approach have control over their learning and have agency in choosing what and when to learn based on their needs and interests. Yet, similar to what has been discussed in much of the literature in online asynchronous learning (Morse, 2003), this kind of learning formats do not provide personalized guidance to students, thus, students may not be fully aware of their strengths and weaknesses and not know what to learn and how to learn. Especially, in the field of esports training, students often require a more specific guidance in terms of what game strategies should be used in the gameplay to improve their game skills. The lack of instant feedback can hinder how students make progress in improving their gameplay and underlying competencies.

There are many esports bootcamp and afterschool training programs that take place in the offline settings in school clubs, student centers, or other student extracurricular centers (Esports Coaching, 2022; GENEX CAMP, 2022; Spire 2022). Most programs offer lectures, invited guest speakers, and organized learning activities (e.g., live gameplay, VOD review and drills). Compared to online training programs which underscore training experience based on students’ interests and preferences, some offline training programs provide a more established schedule or curriculum. The curriculum often places their focus on building peer learning environments through team building activities such as game competitions. Students’ engagement with trainers and other students are fostered by setting up the physical space where trainers/ instructors can move around students’ playstation and provide students with real-time feedback and personalized guidance. Yet, students might feel lost after the offline sessions as the trainers’ instruction and feedback may not be well documented and tracked during real time interactions. Furthermore, the offline learning environment depends heavily on instructors/coaching styles, capacity, and availability and the learning goals are often not clearly identified. With lack of established esports curriculum nor trainer education, the outcome of such training may vary widely.

Blended learning integrates virtual and face-to-face learning, and can be customized with support of technology. Learning can happen online in a format where students have control over their path and pace while the instructor-led classroom or lab provides additional guidance. For example, GamingConcepts’s curriculum uses online esports management system Gameplan to provide educational content online and keep track of students' progress (Esports Training, 2022). Under blended learning, online learning is offered through instructional videos of gameplay and strategies or practice of general cognitive game skills through online mini-games or modules. This allows students to learn and practice esports strategies remotely and independently, while applying these strategies during in-person class sessions as coaches observe and provide feedback. Also, in-person sessions can be used to assist players to overcome challenges they encountered during self-directed learning. While blended approaches allow for efficient use of instruction time, they require higher motivation and self-regulation from the learners.

Learning Goals/Competencies

We applied the rubric of competencies from esports to analyze the learning goals of the selected 12 esports training programs. The goal of the analysis was to identify the diversity, opportunities, and limitations of learning goals in the current offerings.

Common competencies supported by the programs fall under the four categories of competencies: cognitive skills, self-regulation skills, social skills, and career development. Current programs support cognitive skills related to basic gaming skills and understanding of specific in-game mechanics (eSports Camp, 2022; Esports Coaching, 2022; Esports Training, 2022; GWOOP, 2022; Skill Capped, 2022; Spire Esports Camp, 2022; The Complete Guide to LOL, 2022; Training Programs, 2022; Virkayu, 2022). Not all, but a subset of programs that offer esports gameplay training defined physicality, information processing, decision-making, and problem-solving as their learning goals. The second category, self-regulation skills focus on emotional regulation skills. To achieve advancement in esports, players are often required to be able to regulate their game performance, emotions, and motivation during gameplay. Current esports programs foster self-regulation skills to help players advance in such competencies (Become a ProGamer, 2022; eSports Camp, 2022; Esports Coaching, 2022; Esports Training, 2022; GWOOP, 2022; Skill Capped, 2022; Spire Esports Camp, 2022; The Complete Guide to LOL, 2022; Training Programs, 2022; Virkayu, 2022). Under social skills, current esports programs focus on teamwork, leadership, and social skills. Being able to collaborate and communicate with their teammates is also an important competency in team-based games. Finally, support for career development in the esports field include developing the mindset as one transition to professional gamer, and insights about the esports industry. This learning goal is offered specifically in programs that support those aspiring to become professional esports athletes (Become a ProGamer, 2022; eSports Camp, 2022; Esports Coaching, 2022; GENEX CAMP, 2022; Skill Capped, 2022; Spire Esports Camp, 2022; Virkayu, 2022).

Target Audience and Program Goals

Two main categories of audience were identified in the 12 programs under review. The target audience had different goals for training, which determined the structure of the training programs. The first category of learners include youths in middle and high school (Esports Coaching, 2022; Esports Training, 2022; GENEX CAMP, 2022; Spire Esports Camp, 2022). For this audience, esports training programs aim to improve students’ gaming performance, while using esports games as a venue to learn life skills such as communication, leadership, teamwork, business, marketing, and game development skills. Programs often partner with schools or communities to provide in-game skills training, review of game strategies, lectures about relevant gaming topics (e.g. mental health, communication) and related subject areas (e.g., game industry history, content creation, marketing) to gain understanding of the esports world. Some programs integrate hands-on STEM activities to solve problems, make sense of information, and make decisions (GWOOP, 2022). During training, students can hone their cognitive skills and soft skills through game practices. Moreover, to cultivate students’ sportsmanship and a sense of community, some esports training programs participate in tournaments, hold intra-school or inter-school competitions.

Second category of learners are aspiring amateur esports players (eSports Camp, 2022; GWOOP, 2022; The Complete Guide to LOL, 2022; Skill Capped, 2022; Training Programs, 2022; Virkayu, 2022). For them, the goal of training is directly tied to improving gaming skills and is measured by the increase of the rankings in the particular game. Most programs include asynchronous lectures in the form of pre-recorded videos and live sessions that include classes and training feedback. The live sessions are offered in the form of Video-On-Demand (VOD) reviews or real-time comments. Feedback from the instructors or coaches is the most essential part of the training experience as they help players identify the specific context of when, how and why to use certain cognitive, motivational, and self-regulatory strategies, identify and enhance personal strengths and address weaknesses, and promote students’ reflection on their performances to make improvements.

Coaching Styles

Although most esports training programs rely heavily on individual coaches and their capacity to train players, few programs specify how they are delivering the training and coaching to the players (Esports Coaching, 2022; GENEX CAMP, 2022; Spire Esports Camp, 2022; Training Programs, 2022). This may be due to lack of systematic curriculum and training for the coaches, as well as low retention of the coaches. Without theoretical understanding of competencies developed in video games and the knowledge from the learning sciences, coaches in esports tend to focus more on achieving immediate results (e.g. ranking improvement) and less on building a systematic coaching process in general. In personalized training sessions, esports coaches need to observe players, identify their needs, and provide appropriate feedback and support. Coaches use their expertise in gaming to instruct amateur players to think in the way expert players would think in certain scenarios. However, the difference between how novices and experts organize and structure their knowledge might set back amateur players’ understanding and processing of the game strategies used in the related scenarios, thus not supporting amateur players to develop long-term, transferable skills.

Suggestions for Training Approach

Players should be supported across a range of cognitive, metacognitive as well as self-regulation skills as defined in our rubric. This will allow players to continue to improve themselves as a player, but also in the contexts beyond gameplay.

Cognitive skills Coaches have the expertise that the amateur players do not possess. Therefore, players may not be able to comprehend or learn from higher level feedback or suggested strategies that coaches provide based on their interpretation of the gameplay in the context. Breaking down these cognitive skills into smaller steps based on the player’s capacity will be helpful. This may involve explaining what the coach notices in the gameplay (visual perception, information, problem solving), how they interpret the gameplay, why they interpret it in a particular way, what it means in terms of the strategy in relation to the game and the competing team, and what alternative strategies may be available and the implications. Further, coaches should observe and support a diverse range of cognitive skills that underlying complex gameplay.

Metacognitive skills Providing opportunity for the players to evaluate their own gameplay, receive feedback, and improve their own cognitive and metacognitive skills will be important. These skills are best supported through opportunities to observe, model, and practice, which will require coaches to articulate how they engage with such metacognitive practices.

Emotional and social regulation Coaches mainly provide feedback on individual gameplay on a behavioral level. More focus on understanding others (their cognitive strategy, communication, emotional state) as well as their own emotional reaction and regulation will be helpful, especially as the players become more advanced with their gameplay.

Conclusion

As the esports industry expands, there’s an opportunity to more effectively support esports players to develop competencies within the gameplay, as well as those that can be transferred into real life context. Further, the trainers who support esports players need research-informed curriculum to better understand the needs of the players and how to support their development. Training in athletic sports established a systematic approach to understand the diverse competencies needed for professional athletes and to educate trainers with these competencies as well as pedagogical competencies to train the athletes. The field of athletic training evolved overtime as informed by research and practice. Such systematic and scientific approaches to develop competencies in esports can also contribute to more effective training within the esports context, as well as transfer of skills beyond the gameplay if appropriately supported. The paper presents a foundation for such a scientific approach through a rubric of competencies that are needed and practiced through video gameplay. Also, a review of current esports training programs were conducted to analyze the opportunities and limitations in the current esports training, specifically in terms of the learning goals and the training approaches.

The competencies that can be fostered through video gameplay are diverse in nature, ranging from cognitive, self-regulatory, social, academic, and professional skills. These also reflect the complexity of the game design and mechanics as manifest in commercial video games. The diverse skills are developed during gameplay due to the particular game design that allows for players to engage with and apply the skills. The rubric of competencies captures such diversity of learning goals that can be supported through video gameplay in relation to the particular game design that could lead to the development of the skills. The game design components that fall into mechanics, dynamics, aesthetics, and learning opportunities to specifically support certain skills were mapped to the competencies. The analysis shows that the different types of skills are supported through different game design components. Understanding which game design allows for certain competencies, and understanding how to engage in deliberate practice of these competencies will be the first step to systematic esports training.

A review of current esports training programs reveal that not all but a wide range of the skills as captured in the rubric are fostered in the programs, although the focus and training approaches vary widely depending on the target audience and their needs. The programs actively employ different modalities and platforms to provide training opportunities, ranging from online, in-person, to blended learning. There is a mix of modularized learning experiences in the forms of lectures and skill-based mini-games, as well as individual feedback and coaching. The coaches, who are often former players, are invaluable resources in these training programs, but without appropriate pedagogical education, the coaches may be limited in how they can understand, train, and support players with such diverse competencies. Therefore, esports training can benefit not only from a systematic design of the curriculum for the training programs, but also to educate the trainers who facilitate these programs. Learning from the athletic training field, where decades of research has led to an understanding of effective training approaches, will be helpful not only for the players themselves, but also for the coaches who work with them.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Yoo Kyung Chang

Author Biographies

Yoo Kyung Chang, PhD is a senior lecturer at the program of Communication, Media, and Learning Technologies Design, Teachers College. Her research and professional expertise lies in the design and development of technology to support and understand learning and human development. Her current research focuses on the cognitive, affective, and metacognitive implications of data-driven design in diverse contexts ranging from online and technology-enhanced learning, media literacy, game-based learning, playful and exploratory STEM learning, and medical education. As an educator of future learning experience designers, she is invested in understanding the process and the context of developing design literacy.

Keying Chen received her MA in Communication and Education from Teachers College, Columbia University, where she learned about designing media and technology to facilitate learning. Previously, she has experience designing toolkits and curriculum for K-12 educators and students in rural areas of China, creating learning experiences such as tours and games in informal settings, implementing MOOC courses, and researching collaborative blended learning opportunities for working professionals. She now works as the Micro-credential Product Associate for the Pathway and Credentials team at Digital Promise, a non-profit organization, where she supports the product development and innovation to advance equity and improve the opportunity to learn.

Ziyue Li received her MA in Communication and Education from Teachers College, Columbia University, where she studied learning theories and instructional design methods. She is a doctoral candidate in the Information Science program, University of Washington (Seattle). Currently, her work looks at seniors’ information behaviors and misinformation.

References

Adachi

P. J.

Willoughby

(2013). More than just fun and games: the longitudinal relationships between strategic video games, self-reported problem solving skills, and academic grades. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(7), 1041–1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9913-9

Alagoz

(2013). Social argumentation in online synchronous communication. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(4), 399–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9183-2

Anderson

C. G.

Tsaasan

A. M.

Reitman

Lee

J. S.

Steel

Steinkuehler

(2018, September). Understanding esports as a stem career ready curriculum in the wild. In 2018 10th International Conference on Virtual Worlds and Games for Serious Applications (VS-games) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/VS-Games.2018.8493445

Bavelier

Green

C. S.

Han

D. H.

Renshaw

P. F.

Merzenich

M. M.

Gentile

D. A.

(2011). Brains on video games. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12, 763–768. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3135

Bandura

(1986). Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of perceived self-inefficacy. American Psychologist, 41(12), 1389–1391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.12.1389

Bavelier

Achtman

R. L.

Mani

Föcker

(2012). Neural bases of selective attention in action video game players. Vision Research, 61, 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.08.007

Become a ProGamer (2022, September 1). UDEMY. Retrieved September 1, 2022, from https://www.udemy.com/course/progaming/

Bediou

Adams

D. M.

Mayer

R. E.

Tipton

Green

C. S.

Bavelier

(2018). Meta-analysis of action video game impact on perceptual, attentional, and cognitive skills. Psychological Bulletin, 144(1), 77.

Cheung

Huang

(2011, May). Starcraft from the stands: understanding the game spectator. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver BC Canada, May 2011 (pp. 763–772). https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979053

10.

Cho

Tsaasan

A. M.

Steinkuehler

(2019, August). The building blocks of an educational esports league: lessons from year one in orange county high schools. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, San Luis Obispo California USA, August 2019 (pp. 1–11). https://doi.org/10.1145/3337722.3337738

11.

The Complete Guide to LOL (2022, September 1). UDEMY Retrieved September 1, 2022, from https://www.udemy.com/course/the-complete-guide-to-league-of-legends/

12.

Delforge

G. D.

Behnke

R. S.

(1999). The history and evolution of athletic training education in the United States. Journal of Athletic Training, 34(1), 53–61.

13.

Dye

Green

C. S.

Bavelier

(2009a). Increasing speed of processing with action video games. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(6), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01660.x

14.

Dye

M. W.

Green

C. S.

Bavelier

(2009b). The development of attention skills in action video game players. Neuropsychologia, 47(8–9), 1780–1789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.02.002

15.

Ericsson

K. A.

Krampe

R. T.

Tesch-Römer

(1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

16.

eSports Camp (2022, September 1). University of the Pacific. Retrieved September 1, 2022, from https://www.pacific.edu/about-pacific/summer/precollege-summer-program/learning/esports-camp

17.

Esports Coaching (2022, September 1). Concord Games. Retrieved September 1, 2022, from https://concordeeducation.com/games/

18.

Esports Training (2022, September 1). Generation Esports. Retrieved September 1, 2022, from https://www.gamingconcepts.gg/training

19.

Ewoldsen

D. R.

Eno

C. A.

Okdie

B. M.

Valez

J. A.

Guadagno

R. E.

DeCoster

, et al. (2012). Effect of playing violent video games cooperatively or competitively on subsequent cooperative behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(5), 277–280.

20.

Freeman

Wohn

D. Y.

(2019). Understanding eSports team formation and coordination. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 28, 95–126.

21.

Fuks

Raposo

Gerosa

M. A.

Pimentel

Filippo

Lucena

(2008, April). Inter-and intra-relationships between communication coordination and cooperation in the scope of the 3C Collaboration Model . In 2008 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, San Diego CA, April, 2008 (pp. 148–153). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD.2008.4536971

22.

Genex Camp (2022, September 1). Generation Esports. Retrieved September 1, 2022, from https://www.generationesports.com/genexp-camps

23.

Golub

(2010). Being in the World (of Warcraft): Raiding, realism, and knowledge production in a massively multiplayer online game. Anthropological Quarterly, 17–45. https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.0.0110

24.

Granic

Lobel

Engels

R. C. M. E.

(2014). The benefits of playing video games. American Psychologist, 69(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034857

25.

Green

C. S.

Bavelier

(2012). Learning, attentional control, and action video games. Current Biology, 22(6), R197–R206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.02.012

26.

Grimes

S.M.

Feenberg

. 2009. Rationalizing play: A critical theory of digital gaming. The Information Society 25(2): 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240802701643

27.

Gross

J. J.

John

O. P.

(2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348.

28.

GWOOP (2022, September 1). GWOOP. Retrieved September 1, 2022, from https://gwoop.com/en-US/

29.

Halle

T. G.

Darling-Churchill

K. E.

(2016). Review of measures of social and emotional development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 45, 8–18.

30.

Hedlund

Fried

Smith

(Eds.). (2020). Esports Business Management. Human Kinetics. ISBN: 9781718200227

31.

Himmelstein

Liu

Shapiro

J. L.

(2017). An exploration of mental skills among competitive league of legend players. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations (IJGCMS), 9(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGCMS.2017040101

32.

Hunicke

LeBlanc

Zubek

(2004, July). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI (Vol. 4(1), p. 1722).

33.

Kleinman

Gayle

Seif El-Nasr

(2021). “Because I'm Bad at the Game!” A Microanalytic Study of Self Regulated Learning in League of Legends. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 5570. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.780234

34.

Kou

Gui

(2020). Emotion regulation in eSports gaming: a qualitative study of league of legends. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415229

35.

Larsen

L. J.

(2022). The play of champions: Toward a theory of skill in eSport. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 16(1), 130–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2020.1827453

36.

Leavitt

Keegan

B. C.

Clark

(2016, May). Ping to win? non-verbal communication and team performance in competitive online multiplayer games. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose California, May, 2016 (pp. 4337–4350). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858132

37.

Lee

Schoenstedt

L. J.

(2011). Comparison of eSports and traditional sports consumption motives. ICHPER-SD Journal of Research, 6(2), 39–44.

38.

Lee

J. S.

Lee

Fleming

Ruben

Turner

Brown

Steinkuehler

(2020). Designing an Interest-Based Integrated Curriculum Around Esports. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 11(3), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v11i3.27663

39.

Chen

(2016). Playing action video games improves visuomotor control. Psychological Science, 27(8), 1092–1108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616650300

40.

Mills

K. A.

(2015). Literacy Theories for the Digital Age: Social, Critical, Multimodal, Spatial, Material and Sensory Lenses (Vol. 45). Multilingual Matters.

41.

Morse

(2003). Does one size fit all? Exploring asynchronous learning in a multicultural environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i1.1862

42.

Musick

Zhang

McNeese

N. J.

Freeman

Hridi

A. P.

(2021). Leveling up teamwork in esports: Understanding team cognition in a dynamic virtual environment. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449123

43.

Nagorsky

Wiemeyer

(2020). The structure of performance and training in esports. PloS One, 15(8), e0237584. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237584

44.

Nielsen

R. K. L.

Hanghøj

(2019, October). Esports skills are people skills . In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Game-Based Learning , University of Southern Denmark, Denmark, October, 2019 (pp. 535–542). https://doi.org/10.34190/GBL.19.041

45.

Paul

C. A.

(2011). Optimizing play: How theorycraft changes gameplay and design. Game Studies, 11(2), Retrieved from. http://gamestudies.org/1102/articles/paul

46.

Piaget

(1962). The relation of affectivity to intelligence in the mental development of the child. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 26(3), 129.

47.

Prensky

M. R.

(2012). From Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom: Hopeful Essays for 21st Century Learning. Corwin Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483387765

48.

Rapp

(2018). Social game elements in world of warcraft: Interpersonal relations, groups, and organizations for gamification design. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(8), 759–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1461760

49.

Reiser

R. A.

Dempsey

J. V.

(Eds.). (2012). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (p. 408). Boston: Pearson.

50.

Reitman

J. G.

Anderson-Coto

M. J.

Lee

J. S.

Steinkuehler

(2020). Esports research: A literature review. Games and Culture, 15(1), 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412019840892

51.

Schell

(2008). The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses. CRC press. ISBN: 978-0-12-369496-6

52.

Shyr

W. J.

Chen

C. H.

(2018). Designing a technology‐enhanced flipped learning system to facilitate students' self‐regulation and performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12213

53.

Skill Capped . (2022, September 1). Skill Capped Retrieved September 1, 2022, from https://www.skill-capped.com/lol/landing

54.

Spire Esports Camp (2022, September 1). Spire. Retrieved September 1, 2022, from https://www.spireacademy.com/camps/camps-esports/

55.

Stafford

Dewar

2014. Tracing the trajectory of skill learning with a very large sample of online game players. Psychological Science, 25(2), 511–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613511466

56.

Steinkuehler

(2007). Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of literacy practices. In The Design and Use of Simulation Computer Games in Education (pp. 187–215). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087903121_012

57.

Tang

(2018). Understanding esports from the perspective of team dynamics. The Sport Journal, 21, 1–14. Retrieved from http://thesportjournal.org/article/understanding-esports-from-the-perspective-ofteam-dynamics/

58.

Taylor

T. L.

(2012). Raising the Stakes: E-sports and the Professionalization of Computer Gaming. Mit Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8624.001.0001

59.

Tondello

G. F.

Wehbe

R. R.

Orji

Ribeiro

Nacke

L. E.

(2017, October). A framework and taxonomy of videogame playing preferences. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Amsterdam, Netherlands, October, 2017 (pp. 329–340). https://doi.org/10.1145/3116595.3116629

60.

Training Programs (2022, September 1). Gosu. Retrieved September 1, 2022, from https://gosuacademy.com/pages/virkayu-1

61.

Uttal

D. H.

Meadow

N. G.

Tipton

Hand

L. L.

Alden

A. R.

Warren

Newcombe

N. S.

(2013). The malleability of spatial skills: a meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028446

62.

Uzun

A. M.

Kilis

(2019). Does persistent involvement in media and technology lead to lower academic performance? Evaluating media and technology use in relation to multitasking, self-regulation and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.045

63.

Virkayu (2022, September 1). YouTube. Retrieved September 1, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/c/virkayu/about

64.

Wai

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Steiger

J. H.

(2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 860. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019454

Systematic Framework for Esports Training: Informing eSports Training with the Learning Sciences

Abstract

Intro

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

The Need for Systematic Approach for Esports Training

Research Questions

Theoretical Framework

Rubric of eSports Competencies

Rubric of Competencies

Description of the Rubric

Cognitive Competencies

Self-regulation Competencies

Social Competencies

Academic Competencies

Career Competencies

Training Approaches

Modality & Learning Format/Technology

Learning Goals/Competencies

Target Audience and Program Goals

Coaching Styles

Suggestions for Training Approach

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References