Reading and writing at the elementary school level are part of the language skills that students must have. Based on a survey at SD Muhammadiyah Ambarketawang 3 and SDN Balirejo in Yogyakarta, we found problems in elementary schools: more than 60% of grade 1 students could not read, and grade 2 students could not read fluently. One of the causes is a lack of student motivation and interest in learning. Increasing student motivation to learn can be done through educational games (serious games) because they provide learning that can be tailored to students and provide feedback automatically. Many game applications have been developed, but only some are effective and suitable for improving students’ reading learning. This research focuses on developing "alfabeta" games using SAS strategies to learn to read. The development of this game uses the GDLC (Game Development Lifecycle) method, which is a game development method that consists of six main stages: initiation, pre-production, production, testing, beta, and release. In measuring the success of application development, testing is carried out using the media quality test method and Single ease question. According to the media quality test, the "alfabeta" game application scored 4.52 on a scale of 5, which means it has very good quality. According to SEQ testing, the "alfabeta" game scored 6.44 out of a scale of 7, which means the application is very easy to use.

1.
D.
Indrianty
,
O.
Kurniaman
, and
G.
Witri
,
Garuda. Ristekbrin. Go. Id.
72
,
1
13
(
2016
).
2.
A.
Hasanah
and
M. S.
Lena
,
Edukatif: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan
3
,
5
, pp.
3296
3307
(
2021
).
3.
B. Balakrishnan
Nair
,
J Hosp Leis Sport Tour Educ
,
7
,
100362
(
2021
).
4.
J.
Sjöberg
and
E.
Brooks
,
Int J Child Comput Interact
,
33
,
100456
(
2022
).
5.
R. L.
Gómez
and
A. M.
Suárez
,
International Journal of Educational Research Open
,
2
,
100021
(
2021
).
6.
C.
Wardoyo
,
Y. D.
Satrio
,
B. S.
Narmaditya
, and
A.
Wibowo
,
Heliyon
,
7
,
11
, p.
e08467
(
2021
).
7.
M.
Filimon
,
A.
Iftene
, and
D.
Trandabǎţ
,
Procedia Comput Sci
,
159
, pp.
323
332
(
2019
).
8.
B. M.
McLaren
,
J. E.
Richey
,
H.
Nguyen
, and
X.
Hou
,
Comput Educ
,
178
, p.
104366
(
2022
).
9.
W.
Andreani
and
Y.
Ying
,
Procedia Comput Sci
,
157
, pp.
473
478
(
2019
).
10.
I. V.
Osipov
,
S.
Orlov
,
I.
Egorushkin
, and
E.
Nikulchev
,
Procedia Comput Sci
,
186
, pp.
777
786
(
2021
).
11.
C. H.
Chen
,
C.-H.
Ho
, and
J.-B.
Lin
,
Procedia Soc Behav Sci
,
174
, pp.
216
220
(
2015
).
12.
S.
Mishra
and
G.
Malhotra
,
Int J Inf Manage
,
61
, p.
102245
(
2021
).
13.
K.
Arbeau
,
C.
Thorpe
,
M.
Stinson
,
B.
Budlong
, and
J.
Wolff
,
Computers in Human Behavior Reports
,
2
, p.
100013
(
2020
).
14.
N.
Fachada
,
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
,
2
, p.
100014
(
2021
).
15.
P.
Haizel
,
G.
Vernanda
,
K. A.
Wawolangi
, and
N.
Hanafiah
,
Procedia Comput Sci
,
179
, pp.
566
573
(
2021
).
16.
A. A.
Yunanto
,
D.
Herumurti
,
S.
Rochimah
, and
I.
Kuswardayan
,
Procedia Comput Sci
,
161
, pp.
502
508
(
2019
).
17.
R.
Drezewski
and
J.
Solawa
,
Procedia Comput Sci
,
192
, pp.
1914
1923
(
2021
).
18.
L.
Zarco
,
J.
Siegert
,
T.
Schlegel
, and
T.
Bauernhansl
,
Procedia CIRP
,
104
, pp.
792
797
(
2021
).
19.
N.
Kidi
,
B.
Kanigoro
,
A. G.
Salman
,
Y. L.
Prasetio
,
I.
Lokaadinugroho
, and
A. A.
Sukmandhani
,
Procedia Comput Sci
,
116
, pp.
99
106
(
2017
).
20.
X.
Cai
,
J.
Cebollada
, and
M.
Cortiñas
,
Entertain Comput
,
40
,
1
(
2022
).
21.
C. H.
Primasari
,
Procedia Comput Sci
,
197
, pp.
469
476
(
2022
).
22.
D. Aranda
Juárez
,
J.
Sánchez-Navarro
, and
L.
Mohammadi
,
Data Brief
,
28
,
7
(
2020
).
23.
J.
Díaz
,
J. A.
López
,
S.
Sepúlveda
,
G. M. R.
Villegas
,
D.
Ahumada
, and
F.
Moreira
,
Procedia Comput Sci
,
181
, pp.
247
254
(
2021
).
24.
G. C.
da Silva
,
R. L.
Rodrigues
,
A. N.
Amorim
,
R. F.
Mello
, and
J. R. O.
Neto
,
Computers and Education Open
,
3
, p.
100066
(
2022
).
25.
G. P.
Kusuma
,
L. K. Putera
Suryapranata
,
E. K.
Wigati
, and
Y.
Utomo
,
Procedia Comput Sci
,
179
, pp.
886
893
(
2021
).
26.
S.
Perini
,
R.
Luglietti
,
M.
Margoudi
,
M.
Oliveira
, and
M.
Taisch
,
Procedia Manuf
,
11
, pp.
1536
1543
(
2017
).
27.
E.
Jääskä
and
K.
Aaltonen
,
Project Leadership and Society
,
3
, p.
100041
(
2022
).
28.
K.
Kiili
,
K.
Moeller
, and
M.
Ninaus
,
Comput Educ
,
120
, pp.
13
28
(
2018
).
29.
I. B. Kerthyayana
Manuaba
, “
The Design and Game Mechanic of Combined Game Application Prototype for Learning Social Business
,”
Procedia Comput Sci
, vol.
135
, pp.
52
59
,
2018
, doi: .
30.
Y.
Udjaja
and
D.
Ramdhan
, “Experiential game learning design framework: Mechanical content of serious game,” in
Procedia Computer Science
,
Elsevier B.V.
,
2022
, pp.
415
423
.
31.
R.
Tsopra
et al.,
Int J Med Inform
,
136
, p.
104074
(
2020
).
32.
R. M.
Flynn
,
E.
Kleinknecht
,
A. A.
Ricker
, and
F. C.
Blumberg
,
Int J Child Comput Interact
,
30
, p.
100325
(
2021
).
33.
N. H.
Flores
,
A. C. R.
Paiva
, and
P.
Letra
,
Procedia Soc Behav Sci
,
228
, pp.
436
442
(
2016
).
34.
J.
Andrew
,
S.
Henry
,
A. N.
Yudhisthira
,
Y.
Arifin
, and
S. D.
Permai
,
Procedia Comput Sci
,
157
, pp.
353
359
(
2019
).
35.
K.
Bernecker
and
M.
Ninaus
,
Comput Human Behav
,
114
, p.
106542
(
2021
).
36.
N. E. M.
Razali
,
R. Z.
Ramli
,
H.
Mohamed
,
N. A. Mat
Zin
,
F.
Rosdi
, and
N. Mat
Diah
,
Heliyon
,
8
,
1
, p.
e08773
2022
).
37.
O.
Kurniaman
and
E.
Noviana
,
5
, pp.
149
157
(
2017
).
38.
L. E.
Nacke
and
S.
Deterding
,
Comput Human Behav
,
71
, pp.
450
454
(
2017
).
39.
J.
Krath
,
L.
Schürmann
, and
H. F. O.
von Korflesch
,
Comput Human Behav
,
125
, p.
106963
(
2021
).
40.
N.
Pellas
,
P.
Fotaris
,
I.
Kazanidis
, and
D.
Wells
,
Virtual Real
,
23
,
4
, pp.
329
346
(
2019
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.