Author(s): Aristidis Protopsaltis, sonia Hetzner, Dimitra Pappa, Lucia Pannese. Serious Games and Formal and Informal Learning The experience garnered from the eVITA project is used to explore the relation between Serious Games (SGs) and formal and informal learning.

1. From the field
Serious Games and Formal and Informal Learning
Authors The experience garnered from the eVITA project is used to explore the relation between
Serious Games (SGs) and formal and informal learning. The eVITA project promotes and
Aristidis Protopsaltis
investigates pedagogy-driven innovation by defining and evaluating four different ped-
Serious Games Institute
agogical approaches. In addition, it aims to facilitate knowledge-transfer mechanisms
(UK)
that integrate Game Based Learning with intergenerational learning concepts. Within
aprotopsaltis@cad.coventry.
ac.uk the project framework, a set of games have been developed which aim to increase
European cultural awareness by conveying the cross-border experiences of older Eu-
Lucia Pannese ropeans, and the first part of the expert evaluation of the outcomes is presented here.
Imaginary srl – Innovation
Network Politecnico di
Milano (It)
lucia.pannese@i-maginary.it 1. Introduction
Dimitra Pappa The use of traditional games in education has a long standing tradition. Games always used
National Center for Scientific to be part of the human learning experience either in formal or in informal settings. Nowa-
Research “Demokritos” (Gr) days, Serious Games (SGs) have become both a growing market in the video games industry
dimitra@dat.demokritos.gr (Alvarez & Michaud, 2008; Susi, Johanesson & Backlund, 2007) and a field of academic re-
search (Ritterfeld, Cody & Vorderer, 2009) receiving attention from many diverse fields such
Sonia Hetzner
as psychology, cultural studies, computer science, business studies, sociology and pedagogy
Senior researcher, Friedrich- (Breuer & Bente, 2010).
Alexander-Universität
Erlangen-Nürnberg (De) The fact that people learn from digital games is no longer in dispute. Research (de Freitas,
sonia.hetzner@fim.uni- 2006; de Freitas & Neumann, 2009; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Prensky, 2006; Squire, 2004;
erlangen.de Squire & Jenkins, 2003) has shown that serious games can be a very effective as an instruc-
tional tool and it can assist learning by providing an alternative way of presenting instructions
and content. Game based learning and serious games can promote student motivation and
Tags
interest in subject matter, enhancing thus the effectiveness of learning. Learning through
serious games, case games offers increased motivation and interest to learners through the role of “fun” in learn-
studies, informal learning, ing. Adding fun into the learning process makes learning not only more enjoyable and com-
evaluation pelling, but more effective as well (Prensky, 2002, p. 4). One of the main characteristics of
a serious game is the fact that the instructional content is presented together with fun ele-
ments. A game that is motivating makes learners to become personally involved with playing
it in an emotional and cognitive way. By engaging in a dual level, their attention and motiva-
tion is increased and that assists their learning.
There is credible research that suggests that today’s students have a different learning style,
enabled by gaming. Beck and Wade (2004) in their work examined a large number of young
professionals and found that their approach to learning was deliberately overlooking the
structure and format of formal education. They were extensively used trial and error, they
were welcoming contribution and instruction from peers, and they were emphasising on
‘just in time’ learning to fulfil their needs and complete their tasks. All of these skills are
considered essential in the modern world and serious games can assist towards developing
and practicing them.
ing
earn
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
eL ers
25
u
ers.e
gpap
.elea
rnin n.º 25 • July 2011
Pap
www
1

2. From the field
2. Serious Games in Education open-ended nor wholly directed but a hybrid of the two some-
thing Squire (2006, p. 53) have called “designed experiences”.
Serious Games are perceived as games that engage users in
activities other than pure entertainment. They involve goal To assess this kind of “fluency,” Squire (2006) suggests the use of
orientated tasks based either in real world or non-real world assessments that judge how well or not students identify prob-
scenarios and aim to improve the player’s motor and cognitive lems within a domain; how well they can assess solutions; what
skills. Most often they are used for corporate training, educa- kinds of conceptual understandings they develop; and how they
tion, problem solving, military training, health care, government communicate either verbally, written, visually, and “computa-
management, disaster management. Serious games are slowly tionally” (Squire, 2006). Furthermore, serious games can pro-
becoming a powerful tool in education (Torrente, Moreno-Ger, vide feedback in multiple formats the such as charts, graphs,
Fernández-Manjón & del Blanco, 2009). written, multimedia, synchronous and asynchronous peer feed-
back and assessments, and so on, that might be leveraged to
Whilst Serious Games (SGs) are increasingly becoming accepted
support learning in diverse settings. As such, games themselves
as a learning tool, the debate continues about what makes a
may be much better forms of assessment than traditional meth-
game effective and how it should be used. Making “intellectual-
ods in both formal and informal settings (Squire, 2006).
ly appropriate, challenging and enriching” games is considered
a key research challenge together with the integration of SGs Serious Games offer learning experiences that engage users
into the learning process (de Freitas, 2006). and, through the use of novel pedagogic approaches assists in
developing higher levels of cognitive thinking. Serious Games
Serious Games offer a range of benefits such as making users
can also incorporate data tracking to support assessment to
feel responsible for success according to their actions, match
high levels of detail and provide tools for self-assessment and
high-quality content and high engagement, turn mistakes into
analysis. Playing Serious Games, information and sensations ex-
learning elements avoiding the message that an error is some-
perienced remain strongly impress and let the player improve
thing that cannot be recovered, allow problem based learning,
perception, attention and memory, promoting behavior chang-
situated learning and make users feel more comfortable with
es through “learning by doing”. Serious Games allow situated
the exercise etc. SGs offer the ability to participants to assume
learning and make users feel more comfortable with the exer-
an active role in a situated and experiential learning process.
cise. In fact, internalize something you actively did is more sim-
For example, Squire (2007) referring to his personal experience
ple than learning during traditional frontal lessons, a so called
describes fifth-grade kids interacting as equals with computer
“passive learning”. Serious Games are useful in the learning be-
programmers from the Netherlands, improving their spelling
cause they represent a new way to learn exploiting the synergy
through this interaction, and before long they were scripting
between emotions and learning (Pappa et al., In Press).
their own sections of the game-participating in the design of a
new world. Furthermore, it is common practice nowadays for Despite the widespread use of commercial games and the in-
millions of children to learning history first informally through creased attention that the domain of games-based learning has
games and then formally through books and educational mate- received, strategies for supporting the more efficacious meth-
rial. ods of learning with games were uncertain until very recently.
In a study undertaken by de Freitas and Oliver (2006), tutors
It is also widely accepted that educational games can increase
were unsure which games to use, which context to use games
the attractiveness of learning, giving a powerful tool in the effort
and how they could be evaluated and validated. This work led
against de-motivation and dropouts, two issues largely affecting
to the development of conceptual frameworks that were subse-
academic performance and formal and informal learning in gen-
quently used for testing game-based learning. In particular the
eral. Moreover, Serious Games can help to connect specific con-
four dimensional framework proposed by de Freitas and Oliver,
tents and skills with a friendly environment, where the student
(2005) with its four dimensions of the learner, pedagogies used,
is able to play, probe, make mistakes, and learn (Gee, 2003; Van
the representation of the game itself and the context, allowed
Eck, 2006, 2007). More precisely, games employ strategies, such
researchers to evaluate serious games and to interrogate what
as differentiated roles, visualization of performance and just-in-
metrics and measures could be used both to validate game-
time feedback, to guide learning in ways that are neither wholly
based learning, and to support the learning design process. The
ing
earn
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
eL ers
25
u
ers.e
gpap
.elea
rnin n.º 25 • July 2011
Pap
www
2

3. From the field
eVITA approach was based on the four dimensional framework this case in the context of intergenerational learning and in for-
and it produced four different serious games, based on four dif- mal and informal learning.
ferent pedagogical approaches.
Most of what happens with technology outside the classroom 3. Formal and non-formal learning
was and still is according to Squire (Squire, 2007) ignored. He In the past diverse attempts were made to define formal, non-
(Squire, 2007) advocates that there is a need for mixed ap- formal and informal learning as well as to provide main indi-
proaches that combine instruction with well-designed feedback cators for their occurrence. The CEDEFOP glossary (Tissot, P.,
and scaffolding activities. More precisely, there is a need for 2000; Tissot, P., 2004) after intensive literature review in Europe
incorporating formative assessment practices into formal and defines as follows: formal learning consists of learning that oc-
maybe into informal learning. For doing so, it is necessary to curs within an organised and structured context (formal edu-
change classroom traditional activities and interactions among cation, in-company training), and that is designed as learning,
students and teachers (Bell & Cowie, 2001), to change the tra- formal learning may lead to formal recognition (certification).
ditional communication, and to give students more independ- Non-formal learning consists of learning embedded in planned
ence, activity and intentionality in their learning that go beyond activities that are not explicitly designated as learning, but
traditional intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Bereiter & Scar- which contain an important learning element. Informal learning
damalia, 1989; Scardamalia, 2002). is defined as learning resulting from daily life activities related
to work, family, or leisure. It is often referred to as experien-
Serious games can be used as additional option to classroom
tial learning and can, to a degree, be understood as accidental
lecturing. The intention of serious games is to address new ways
learning.
of ICT based instructional design and at the same time to pro-
vide learners the possibility to acquire skills and competencies. According to these definitions we could place Serious Games
By means of serious games learners/players should be able to learning activities as non-formal learning activities. Although
apply factual knowledge, learn on demand, gain experiences in they are explicitly designed for learning, if well designed learn-
the virtual world that can later shape their behavioural patterns ing occurs as a side effect of gaming. The approach can be dif-
and directly influence their reflection, etc. (Pivec & Kearney, ferent, if we approach Serious Games as learning elements that
2007). can be integrated in multiple learning environments. In this way
Serious Games can be a part of formal, non-formal or informal
Squire (Squire, 2006, 2007) is arguing that instructional theory
learning settings. According to Colardyn and Bjørnåvold (2005)
approaches need to seek to explain how particular game-based
the different learning forms have to be approach in a two di-
approaches work within particular contexts. This is what eVI-
mensional framework: 1. Structure of the context 2. Intention
TA is ambitious of doing. By developing four different versions
to learn.
based on four different pedagogies, eVITA evaluates how these
four different approaches work within particular context and in
Intention to learn
Structure of the context Learning is intentional Learning is non-intentional
Planned learning activities Formal learning
Non-formal learning
Planned activities
(or contextual learning)
No planning Informal learning
Table 1: Definiting formal, non-formal and informal learning according to learning intention and structure of the context.
Source: Colardyn and Bjornavold (2005).
ing
earn
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
eL ers
25
u
ers.e
gpap
.elea
rnin n.º 25 • July 2011
Pap
www
3

4. From the field
Depending on the adopted perspective, Serious Games can be vide an open learning environment, supporting each individual
framed in different areas of the above table: If defined as an learning choice and learning-motivation. Serious Games does
independently running learning environment with integrate not restrain when, where and why learning occurs.
pedagogical elements such as didactical design, help, phases,
The American National Educational Technology Plan 2010 (short
assessment and feedback, social interaction applications, etc.
NETP) presents a model of 21st century learning powered by
Serious Games are aimed at intentional learning and usually
technology, with goals and recommendations in five areas:
embedded in planned learning activities. In this case we talk
learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productiv-
about formal learning. If we switch the perspective and observe
ity. The plan calls for engaging and empowering learning experi-
Serious Games as one possible didactical element of a more
ences for all learners. It wants to bring state-of-the art technol-
complex learning environment, which can be intentional (in the
ogy into learning to enable, motivate, and inspire all students,
educational context) but also non-intentional (purely gaming)
regardless of background, languages, or disabilities, to achieve.
and it can be planned (in the classroom) or non-planned (eve-
It leverages the power of technology to provide personalized
rywhere) as merely leisure activity. Then we can define Serious
learning instead of a one-size-fits-all curriculum, pace of teach-
Games as suitable elements in every type of learning. And this
ing, and instructional practices. Serious Games would fit per-
is one particular gain of Serious Games in education. Educa-
fectly in this educational plan.
tion is heading to a big change. The lines between formal and
informal, planned or unplanned learning are more and more Serious Games support students mobility, can be developed by
blurred, and mostly a shift to less formal education occurs. students and shared with others, allows students to participate
Sefton-Green (2004) mentions that the use of computer in and in social networks to collaborate and learn new things. Quoting
outside the classroom allow children and young people a wide the Executive summary of NETP (2010, p. 4): “Outside school,
variety of activities and experiences that can support learning, students are free to pursue their passions in their own way and
yet many of these transactions do not take place in traditional at their own pace. The opportunities are limitless, borderless,
educational settings, often synonymous for formal learning. In and instantaneous.” In this interpretation of future learning Se-
this contextual change Serious Games contain a great potential rious Games are definitely excellent knowledge buildings tools
to a) set clear pedagogical aims but at the same time b) pro- in every learning situation.
Source: “Model of Learning” NETP (2010, p. 27)
ing
earn
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
eL ers
25
u
ers.e
gpap
.elea
rnin n.º 25 • July 2011
Pap
www
4

5. From the field
4. The e-VITA experience however should be to balance the two, in order to create an
optimal experience and achieve a completely focused player
The e-VITA project (“European Life Experiences”) proposes
motivation in line with the theory of flow proposed by Csik-
an innovative and creative methodology for intergenerational
szentmihalyi (1996). Successful games are those that can bring
knowledge sharing and transfer (intergenerational learning),
players in a mental state of operation, in which they find them-
which combines storytelling and SGs. Intergenerational learn-
selves fully immersed in the game environment and compelled
ing, which refers to the sharing of information, thoughts, feel-
to explore and experiment further. According to Csikszentmiha-
ings and experiences between different generations. Typically
lyi (1996) the eight components that contribute to an optimal
this process is informal, taking place during regular everyday
experience are:
exchanges with older relatives and friends, but can also be pro-
moted through organised or planned activities (e.g. elderly peo- • Clearly defined goals
ple making lectures in schools, school children visiting nursing
• Concentration on task at hand
homes, reminiscence projects, etc).
• Merging of action and awareness
e-VITA, in addition to demonstrating the learning potential of
• An altered sense of time
SGs for the purposes of intergenerational learning, is also set
to highlight and investigate important aspects of games design. • Clear and responsive feedback
In particular, the project explores the pedagogic dimension of
• Balanced level of challenge and difficulty
SGs through the adoption of four differing approaches, imple-
mented and analysed in the form of four distinct SGs. Each has • A sense of control over the task at hand
the same learner, context, and representational medium, yet • A challenging task requiring skill to execute
the pedagogic underpinnings are varied so as to provide a basis
for comparative study. The four approaches include: In this light, three critical dimensions emerge in educational
games development. In line with the threefold nature of SGs
1. A narrative-based game which uses storytelling to achieve as: (a) IT products, (b) Games and (c) Learning Instruments, ef-
engagement and flow; in this respect it can be seen to fective SGs need to be (a) technically sound and easy-to-use IT
draw on oral history pedagogy (King & Stahl, 1990); products, (b) fun and engaging games and (c) effective learning
2. An experiential game, where the player is transferred into instruments that lead to the desired learning outcome.
the state of affairs faced by the narrator, and as such in-
The preliminary validation of the e-VITA prototype game (an ex-
fluenced by situative pedagogy;
periential game evolving around the adventures of a journalist
3. A puzzle-based game, wherein the player has to solve who has to write an article about the “East and West block” and
puzzles and overcome challenges in order to proceed, the times before the fall of the Berlin wall) involved a broad tar-
and finally; get group from several European countries (Spain, Portugal, Po-
land, Italy, Greece, UK), namely young people (school children
4. An exploratory game focused on increasing the learner’s
and young adults) interested in acquiring intergenerational and
zone of proximal development by directing them to web
intercultural knowledge by means of game playing. It featured
and other external material and resources in order to
a questionnaire-based evaluation that was complimented by in-
overcome the challenges or problems presented by the
formal interviews, during which users were asked to elaborate
game.
on their feedback/rating. The three analysis dimensions includ-
Overall, games represent a complex electronic medium, de- ed: technical solidity & usability, cognitive & affective aspects
signed to allow users to experience an artefact, a situation etc. and pedagogical aspects (achievement of learning outcome),
Setting up effective SGs is a complex task that requires meticu- yet particular attention was placed on usability issues and cog-
lous planning following a holistic examination of a number of nitive and affective aspects, namely on the game’s graphical de-
parameters. Often game design either focuses solely on the sign, navigation, story line etc, as well as on its ability to achieve
learning goal (e.g. on teaching a specific skill or procedure) thus player involvement and motivation, or to induce enjoyment and
giving player entertainment a lesser role, or accentuates the fun emotions (e.g. gratification). The transferring of factual knowl-
elements of game playing at the cost of learning. The purpose edge was also investigated.
ing
earn
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
eL ers
25
u
ers.e
gpap
.elea
rnin n.º 25 • July 2011
Pap
www
5

6. From the field
Overall the evaluation results were satisfactory. Some aspects perience and they believe the gaming experience improves the
of the game were criticised, yet all attributes have received a retention of new knowledge gained.
positive rating. For example this was the case with the game’s
Similarly, varying points of view were recorded among male and
“graphical design” and “navigation”. Among the critics some
female respondents. Based on the evaluation results it would
questioned the use of two-dimensional design which they char-
seem that the prototype game appeals more to female users.
acterised as “Old”, others the use of photographs, the design
More specifically, female gamers appreciate more look of the
of the characters, the use of colour, the lack of movement etc.
game and also have a more clear view of the game’s objectives,
Most users responded that they had no problem concentrating
appreciate more the instructions and feedback provided during
while enjoying the contents of the game. Yet the majority disa-
and at the end of the game, would be more motivated to seek
grees that “the activities proposed in the game were engaging
additional information after having played the game and also
and “kept interest alive”.
would be more willing to repeat the
experience compared to male users.
3,5
Figure 2 illustrates the major points of
3 deviation recorded.
2,5
These gender and age differences
2 20-
that are often evident in leisure gam-
20+ ing clearly stress the need to take
1,5
gender and age into consideration
1 during game design. This clearly dem-
0,5 onstrates that it is difficult to create
a game that appeals equally to all.
0
The patterns of game-play of the in-
If it was a free
feeling at ease
remember the
game content
game design is
practice on an
new things I
while playing
argument of
tended target group should be taken
easier to
is clear
attractive
into consideration during SGs design,
in order to achieve an optimal mix be-
tween education and entertainment.
Figure 1: Deviation on preference between under 20 and over 20
Some differences between age groups
(i.e. under and over 20 years old users)
and also between female and male re-
spondents were evident, while there
were no significant variations with re-
spect to the country.
Figure 1 illustrates the major points of
deviation between 20+ and 20- users.
Overall, it would seem that the proto-
type game appeals more to 20+ play-
ers, who feel more in command while
using the game, understand better the
content of the game and appreciate
more the way the different life situa-
tions are presented. Older users would
be more interested in repeating the ex- Figure 2: Differences on preference between males and females
ing
earn
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
eL ers
25
u
ers.e
gpap
.elea
rnin n.º 25 • July 2011
Pap
www
6

7. From the field
While SGs have a clear value for transmitting explicit, factual when some groups of the young target group were interviewed
knowledge, perhaps their greater strength relates to the trans- both in Italy and in Germany. Overall around 90 students were
ferring of tacit knowledge, skills, behaviours that can be embed- interviewed (Hetzner & Pannese, 2009), both teen-agers in the
ded in games. The purpose of SGs used in the context of inter- 14-18 years age group and university students (Pannese, Hall-
generational learning, is not only to engage/entertain younger meier, Hetzner & Confalonieri, 2009). This participatory ap-
generations of players, or convey practical or historical informa- proach already underlined several aspects, like the difference in
tion about past decades, but rather to immerse players in this expectations which vary quite substantially between the teen-
era and allow them to experience the life of older generations. ager groups and the university students, although again this
In this light it would be difficult for many users to put into words difference is reduced, once teen-agers are able to focus on se-
what they have learning by playing this game. rious games as alternative learning means to some more “clas-
sical” or “formal” approach, which they consider boring and
5. Conclusions: Challenges in design and definitely non-entertaining. Making them imagine that informal
approaches like gaming could be introduced in their formal cur-
development of games for formal-
ricula and lessons, makes them much more flexible and able to
informal learning
accept compromise as well as it reduces their expectations. This
The Games are normally by their intrinsic nature a means for in- was definitely the case when discussing the gaming interface
formal learning, although they can be used in formal settings as in the above mentioned focus groups. While to them a game
well as for self-regulated learning. Independently on how they interface must definitely be a high sophisticated 3D, especially
might be used, there are several challenges that designers and for males, when considering an informal learning approach,
developers of serious games must face, some pertaining more they would “surrender” accepting 2D, simple interface. Univer-
to the learning aspect, some more to the gaming aspect and sity students on the other hand tend to have expectations that
some others to technological and implementation details. are more similar to the teachers’ ones: they concentrate much
more on the contents and on the engagement that is induced by
To sum up the most frequent challenges the following can be
interesting and sometimes surprising, new information. Teach-
listed:
ers definitely concentrate on contents that must be in line with
• matching users’ expectations topics that they teach in formal lessons and need some certain-
• matching trainers’ expectations ty that no bias was introduced for narrative or engagement rea-
• finding balance between learning & fun/engagement sons. They envisage some games that can guarantee a flexible
use for them, a meaningful experience for the learners, some
• finding a form suited for self-learning but also for introduc-
cross-discipline content to work on students skills and enable
tion in a training programme at the same time to guarantee
them to bridge gaps between one subject and another. These
freedom of use
gaps are sometimes even provoked by formal lessons, when
• giving enough guidance without taking the challenge away each teacher considers their subjects and no exercise allows
and without interfering with the narrative and the game some critical thinking about connections between different top-
play ics and subjects. The point in this context is definitely reflection
• how to give meaningful feedback that can be triggered through the gaming experience. As Watt
• how to make it a meaningful experience (2009) puts it, it is the intended result of playing the game that
• how to involve the emotional side of the learner defines it as serious, not the playing activity itself.
• how to consider gender-dependent aspects Interestingly enough, most of the expectation to have fun and be
• being close to context (no bias in the content to introduce active must be used and enhanced by teachers: it is the way to
narrative aspects) introduce the informal factors in the formal setting that makes
• graphical appeal every feedback and the whole experience meaningful and that
allows to maximize context-bound reflection and thus situated
We will not enter in technological details here, but we will re- learning. Very much of the learning outcome depends on the
flect about and investigate some of the challenges that emerged overall experience set up around and with the game, turning
already from the 2 focus groups held during the e-VITA project, game play into a social activity. This is true within a group or in a
ing
earn
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
eL ers
25
u
ers.e
gpap
.elea
rnin n.º 25 • July 2011
Pap
www
7

8. From the field
classroom but also in self-regulated learning with online group To conclude, there is no unambiguous answer to the challenges
dynamics and social online interaction around the game. This while confronting with the creative experience of conceiving a
social phenomenon can be observed even with simple exam- serious game: everything must carefully de designed and de-
ples (not even serious games) in Facebook, like FarmVille for veloped according to the specific use that will be done of the
example. serious game, of the target group, their skills, preferences, ex-
perience with these tools, the experience of the teacher and
At the same time, the core role of the teacher is determining
the role that informal methods will take up in formal learning
if a good balance between fun and learning can be reached.
settings. Probably the reason for this is, as Watt (2009) puts it,
Obviously the serious game itself must already contain some
that serious games research nowadays is facing the same chal-
valid learning elements as well as some engaging aspects but
lenges that HCI (Human-Computer-Interaction) was facing 15
the whole experience can be changed or even reversed accord-
years ago.
ing to the specific use of the game and its context of use. This
again brings us to another challenge: how much guidance must
be given inside the game and how much can or should be given
around it by the teacher? Or again: how much can be delegated
to peer-to-peer supporting and teaching? This has to do once
more with meaningful feedback as well: in order to be mean-
ingful, feedback should again probably be adaptive to the spe-
cific user/player and his or her specific competences or level of
expertise (Bente & Breuer, 2009). On the one hand feedback
must be given within the game play (without disturbing or inter-
rupting this) and as part of the game, which means that careful
attention must be given by learners to details of dialogues or
happenings that should unveil what other characters think, how
they perceive the player’s actions or how the dynamics of the
action change. On the other hand a final, explicit feedback must
be given, which allows analyzing every decision, behaviour and
consequence during the game play.
ing
earn
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
eL ers
25
u
ers.e
gpap
.elea
rnin n.º 25 • July 2011
Pap
www
8

9. From the field
References Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2005). Beyond edutainment: Exploring the
educational potential of computer games. University of Copenhagen,
Alvarez, J., & Michaud, L. (2008). Serious games: Advergaming, Copenhagen.
edugaming, training and more. Montpellier, France: IDATE.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and
Beck, J. C., & Wade, M. (2004). Got game: How the gamer genera- literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
tion is reshaping business forever: Harvard business school press. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hetzner, S., & Pannese, L. (2009). E-vita, life simulations in an
intergenerational setting. Journal of eLearning and Knowledge Society
Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative assessment and science edu- (JELKS), 5(2 Focus on Simulations).
cation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
King, J., & Stahl, N. (1990). Oral history as a critical pedagogy:
Bente, G., & Breuer, J. (2009). Making the implicit explicit: Em- Some cautionary issues, Annual Meeting of the American Reading
bedded measurement in serious games. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody Forum. Florida, USA.
& P.Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games mechanisms and effects. New York/
London: Routledge. National_Educational_Technology_Plan. (2010). Transforming
american education: Learning powered by technology: U.S. Department of
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as Education: Office of Educational Technology.
a goal of instruction. In B. L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and
instruction: Essays in honor of robert glaser (pp. 361-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Pannese, L., Hallmeier, R., Hetzner, S., & Confalonieri, L.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (2009, 12-13 October). Storytelling and serious games for creative learn-
ing in an intergenerational setting. Paper presented at the 3rd European
Breuer, J., & Bente, G. (2010). Why so serious? On the relation Conference on Games Based Learning (ECGBL), Graz, Austria,
of serious games and learning. Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game 303-311.
Culture, 4(1), 7-24.
Pappa, D., Dunwell, I., Protopsaltis, A., Pannese, L., et al.
Colardyn, D., & Bjørnåvold, J. (2005). The learning continuity: (In Press). Game-based learning for knowledge sharing and trans-
European inventory on validating non-formal and informal learning. Na- fer: The e-vita approach for intergenerational learning. In P. Felicia
tional policies and practices in validating non-formal and informal learning. (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving learning and motivation through
Luxembourg: CEDEFOP Panorama. educational games: Multidisciplinary approaches: IGI Global.
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of Pivec, M., & Kearney, P. (2007). Games for learning and learning
discovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial. from games. Informatica, 31(2007), 419-423.
de Freitas, S. (2006). Using games and simulations for supporting Prensky, M. (2002). The motivation of gameplay. On the Horizon,
learning. Learning, Media and Technology Special Issue on Gaming, 31(4), 10(1).
343-358.
Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me mom, i’m learning. St. Paul,
de Freitas, S., & Neumann, T. (2009). The use of ‘exploratory MN: Paragon House.
learning’ for supporting immersive learning in virtual environ-
ments. Computers and Education, 52(2), 343-352. Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., & Vorderer, P. (2009). Serious games:
Mechanisms and effects. New York/London: Routledge.
de Freitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2005). A four dimensional frame-
work for the evaluation and assessment of educational games, Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for
Computer Assisted Learning Conference. the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education
in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court.
de Freitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory learn-
ing with games and simulations within the curriculum be most Sefton-Green, J. (2004). Literature review in informal learning with
effectively evaluated? Computers and Education, 46(3), 249-264. technology outside school (No. Report 7). Bristol: Future Lab.
ing
earn
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
eL ers
25
u
ers.e
gpap
.elea
rnin n.º 25 • July 2011
Pap
www
9

10. From the field
Squire, K. (2004). Replaying history: Learning world history through Tissot, P. (2004). Terminology of vocational training policy: A multilin-
playing civilization iii. Indiana University, Indiana, USA. gual glossary for an enlarged europe. Luxembourg: Cedefop: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities.
Squire, K. (2006). From content to context:Video games as de-
signed experiences. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19-29. Torrente, J., Moreno-Ger, P., Fernández-Manjón, B., & del
Blanco, A. (2009). Game-like simulations for online adaptive
Squire, K. (2007). Games, learning, and society: Building a field.
learning: A case study, Edutainment 2009 Fourth International Confer-
Educational Technology, 4(5), 51-54.
ence on ELearning and Games. Banff, Canada.
Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2003). Harnessing the power of games
Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the
in education. Insight, 3, 5-33.
digital natives who are restless. 41(2), 16–30.
Susi, T., Johanesson, M., & Backlund, P. (2007). Serious games -
Van Eck, R. (2007). Building artificially intelligent learning
an overview (technical report). Skövde, Sweden: University of Skövde.
games. In V. Sugumaran (Ed.), Intelligent information technologies:
Tissot, P. (2000). Glossary on identification, assessment and Concepts, methodologies, tools and applications: IGI Global.
recognition of qualifications and competences and transparency
Watt, H. J. (2009). Improving methodology in serious games
and transferability of qualifications. In J. Bjornavold (Ed.), Making
research with elaborated theory. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody & P.
learning visible: Identification, assessment and recognition of non-formal
Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games mechanisms and effects. New York/Lon-
learning in europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of
don: Routledge.
the European Communities.
Edition and production
Name of the publication: eLearning Papers Copyrights
ISSN: 1887-1542
The texts published in this journal, unless otherwise indicated, are subject
Publisher: elearningeuropa.info
to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks
Edited by: P.A.U. Education, S.L. 3.0 Unported licence. They may be copied, distributed and broadcast pro-
Postal address: c/Muntaner 262, 3r, 08021 Barcelona (Spain) vided that the author and the e-journal that publishes them, eLearning
Phone: +34 933 670 400 Papers, are cited. Commercial use and derivative works are not permitted.
Email: editorial@elearningeuropa.info The full licence can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licenc-
Internet: www.elearningpapers.eu es/by-nc-nd/3.0/
ing
earn
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
eL ers
25
u
ers.e
gpap
.elea
rnin n.º 25 • July 2011
Pap
www
10