Age–Mechanic–Function (AMF) Framework: A Developmental Framework for Analyzing Cognitive and Social Learning Opportunities in Analog Board Games for Children Aged 3–8

Authors

  • Prisyafandiafif Charifa Anomali Lab, Indonesia
  • Syaiful Lokan Sekolah.mu, Indonesia
  • Ima Apriliani Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/jk.v12i3.22425

Keywords:

analog games, developmental alignment, early childhood, executive function, guided play

Abstract

This study aims to construct and preliminarily appraise the Age–Mechanic–Function (AMF) Framework as a systematic, evidence-informed framework for analyzing cognitive and social learning opportunities in analog board games designed for children aged 3–8 years. The study combined an integrative review, structured content analysis of a purposive sample of 20 commercially available games, and a preliminary expert appraisal involving three experts in game facilitation, game design, and early childhood education. The 20 games were purposively selected based on variation in game mechanics, reported availability, and market visibility, and satisfied the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria by spanning all three proposed developmental age ranges and representing the full spectrum of proposed mechanic families. The framework distinguishes among proposed design range, mechanic demands, potential practice opportunities, demonstrated outcome evidence, evidence directness, and facilitation conditions. For the experts’ ratings of the original combined game-level mappings, ordinal Krippendorff’s alpha was .860, while pairwise unweighted kappa values ranged from .798 to .805. These estimates indicate substantial agreement in category assignments within the small expert panel but do not establish developmental validity, causal effects, or validated age cutoffs. Accordingly, the AMF Framework is proposed as a transparent decision aid for generating and comparing design hypotheses rather than as a diagnostic tool or an alternative safety-rating system. Broader expert consensus and prospective studies involving children are needed before claims regarding learning effectiveness can be made. The AMF Framework may support game developers in designing learning mechanics that are informed by available evidence and provide early childhood educators with a structured basis for evaluating and integrating educational board games into classroom practice.

References

Aiken, Lewis R. (1985). Three Coefficients for Analyzing the Reliability and Validity of Ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012

Arifa, D., & Tyas, D. N. (2025). Developing An Educational Board Game with Digital Question Cards : A TGT Model Approach to Enhance Natural and Social Sciences Learning Outcomes. Jurnal Kependidikan : Jurnal Hasil Penelitian Dan Kajian Kepustakaan Di Bidang Pendidikan, Pengajaran, Dan Pembelajaran, 11(2), 862–873.

Arnab, S., Lim, T., Carvalho, M. B., Bellotti, F., de Freitas, S., Louchart, S., Suttie, N., Berta, R., & De Gloria, A. (2015). Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12113

Bawawa, M., Purwanti, R., & Pertiwi, S. A. (2025). Development of A Basic English Board Game on Local Culture as An Interactive Learning Media for Elementary Students in Rural Papua. Jurnal Kependidikan : Jurnal Hasil Penelitian Dan Kajian Kepustakaan Di Bidang Pendidikan, Pengajaran, Dan Pembelajaran, 11(1), 156–166.

Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A Developmental Perspective on Executive Function. Child Development, 81(6), 1641–1660. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01499.x

Charifa, P., & Apriliani, I. (2025). Playing to Focus: A Systematic Review of Reveal-and-React Board and Card Games for Executive Function Development in Children. Bulletin of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.51214/002025071524000

Cowan, Nelson. (2016). Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get at the Essence of Cognitive Growth? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(2), 239–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615621279

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive Functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(Volume 64, 2013), 135–168. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

Eldridge, S. M., Chan, C. L., Campbell, M. J., Bond, C. M., Hopewell, S., Thabane, L., & Lancaster, G. A. (2016). CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. BMJ, 355. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5239

Emen Parlatan, M., & Sığırtmaç, A. D. (2022). Preschool children’s behaviours in competitive games: are these games really harmful to social-emotional development? Early Child Development and Care, 192(14), 2200–2212. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2021.1990910

Evans, A. D., Xu, F., & Lee, K. (2011). When All Signs Point to You: Lies Told in the Face of Evidence. Developmental Psychology, 47, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020787

Ferrara, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N. S., Golinkoff, R. M., & Lam, W. S. (2011). Block Talk: Spatial Language During Block Play. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(3), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2011.01122.x

Fisher, K. R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Taking Shape: Supporting Preschoolers’ Acquisition of Geometric Knowledge Through Guided Play. Child Development, 84(6), 1872–1878. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12091

Garon, N., Bryson, S., & Smith, I. (2008). Executive Function in Preschoolers: A Review Using an Integrative Framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31

Gashaj, V., Dapp, L. C., Trninic, D., & Roebers, C. M. (2021). The effect of video games, exergames and board games on executive functions in kindergarten and 2nd grade: An explorative longitudinal study. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 25, 100162. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2021.100162

Girard, C., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2013). Serious games as new educational tools: how effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00489.x

Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90

Hunicke, R., Leblanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. AAAI Workshop - Technical Report, 1.

James-Brabham, E., Jay, T., & Sella, F. (2024). No Evidence That Playing a Linear Number Board Game Improves Numerical Skills Beyond Teaching as Usual: A Randomized Controlled Trial in 4- to 5-Year-Old Primary School Children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 116, 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000857

Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (Fourth Edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). An Application of Hierarchical Kappa-type Statistics in the Assessment of Majority Agreement among Multiple Observers. Biometrics, 33(2), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786

Laski, E., & Siegler, R. (2014). Learning From Number Board Games: You Learn What You Encode. Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 853–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034321

Leisterer-Peoples, S. M., Ross, C. T., Greenhill, S. J., Hardecker, S., & Haun, D. B. M. (2021). Games and enculturation: A cross-cultural analysis of cooperative goal structures in Austronesian games. PLOS ONE, 16(11), e0259746-. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259746

Levine, S., Ratliff, K., Huttenlocher, J., & Cannon, J. (2011). Early Puzzle Play: A Predictor of Preschoolers’ Spatial Transformation Skill. Developmental Psychology, 48, 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025913

O’Neill, D., & Holmes, P. (2022). The Power of Board Games for Multidomain Learning in Young Children. American Journal of Play, 14, 58–98.

Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199

Ramani, G. B., Siegler, R., & Hitti, A. (2012). Taking It to the Classroom: Number Board Games as a Small Group Learning Activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 661–672. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028995

Ramani, G. B., & Siegler, R. S. (2011). Reducing the gap in numerical knowledge between low- and middle-income preschoolers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.02.005

Skene, K., O’Farrelly, C. M., Byrne, E. M., Kirby, N., Stevens, E. C., & Ramchandani, P. G. (2022). Can guidance during play enhance children’s learning and development in educational contexts? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Development, 93(4), 1162–1180. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13730

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Sousa, C., Rye, S., Sousa, M., Torres, P. J., Perim, C., Mansuklal, S. A., & Ennami, F. (2023). Playing at the school table: Systematic literature review of board, tabletop, and other analog game-based learning approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1160591. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1160591

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

Vita-Barrull, N., Estrada-Plana, V., March-Llanes, J., Guzmán, N., Fernández-Muñoz, C., Ayesa, R., & Moya-Higueras, J. (2023). Board game-based intervention to improve executive functions and academic skills in rural schools: A randomized controlled trial. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 33, 100216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2023.100216

Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Guided Play: Where Curricular Goals Meet a Playful Pedagogy. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(2), 104–112. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12015

Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

Wouters, P., Nimwegen, C., Oostendorp, H., & Spek, E. (2013). A Meta-Analysis of the Cognitive and Motivational Effects of Serious Games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031311

Zelazo, P. D., & Carlson, S. M. (2012). Hot and Cool Executive Function in Childhood and Adolescence: Development and Plasticity. Child Development Perspectives, 6(4), 354–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00246.x

Published

2026-09-07

How to Cite

Prisyafandiafif Charifa, Syaiful Lokan, & Ima Apriliani. (2026). Age–Mechanic–Function (AMF) Framework: A Developmental Framework for Analyzing Cognitive and Social Learning Opportunities in Analog Board Games for Children Aged 3–8. Jurnal Kependidikan : Jurnal Hasil Penelitian Dan Kajian Kepustakaan Di Bidang Pendidikan, Pengajaran, Dan Pembelajaran, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.33394/jk.v12i3.22425

Issue

Vol. 12 No. 3 (2026): September (IN PRESS)

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  • They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  • The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  • That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  • That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities tacitly or explicitly of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  • They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  • They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.

Copyright
Authors who publish with JK agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Licensing for Data Publication

JK use a variety of waivers and licenses, that are specifically designed for and appropriate for the treatment of data:
Other data publishing licenses may be allowed as exceptions (subject to approval by the editor on a case-by-case basis) and should be justified with a written statement from the author, which will be published with the article.

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.