Serious Games for Formal and Informal Learning

Abstract

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
investigates pedagogy-driven innovation by defining and evaluating four different pedagogical
approaches. In addition, it aims to facilitate knowledge-transfer mechanisms
that integrate Game Based Learning with intergenerational learning concepts. Within
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 Europeans,
and the first part of the expert evaluation of the outcomes is presented here.

Full text

eLearning
Papers
25
www.elearningpapers.eu
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
n.º 25 • July 2011
1
From the eld
serious games, case
studies, informal learning,
evaluation
Tags
Authors
Aristidis Protopsaltis
Serious Games Institute
(UK)
aprotopsaltis@cad.coventry.
ac.uk
Lucia Pannese
Imaginary srl – Innovation
Network Politecnico di
Milano (It)
lucia.pannese@i-maginary.it
Dimitra Pappa
National Center for Scientific
Research “Demokritos” (Gr)
dimitra@dat.demokritos.gr
Sonia Hetzner
Senior researcher, Friedrich-
Alexander-Universität
Erlangen-Nürnberg (De)
sonia.hetzner@fim.uni-
erlangen.de
Serious Games and Formal and Informal Learning
The experience garnered from the eVITA project is used to explore the relaon between
Serious Games (SGs) and formal and informal learning. The eVITA project promotes and
invesgates pedagogy-driven innovaon by dening and evaluang four dierent ped-
agogical approaches. In addion, it aims to facilitate knowledge-transfer mechanisms
that integrate Game Based Learning with intergeneraonal learning concepts. Within
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-
ropeans, and the rst part of the expert evaluaon of the outcomes is presented here.
1. Introduction
The use of tradional games in educaon has a long standing tradion. Games always used
to be part of the human learning experience either in formal or in informal sengs. Nowa-
days, Serious Games (SGs) have become both a growing market in the video games industry
(Alvarez & Michaud, 2008; Susi, Johanesson & Backlund, 2007) and a eld of academic re-
search (Rierfeld, Cody & Vorderer, 2009) receiving aenon from many diverse elds such
as psychology, cultural studies, computer science, business studies, sociology and pedagogy
(Breuer & Bente, 2010).
The fact that people learn from digital games is no longer in dispute. Research (de Freitas,
2006; de Freitas & Neumann, 2009; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Prensky, 2006; Squire, 2004;
Squire & Jenkins, 2003) has shown that serious games can be a very eecve as an instruc-
onal tool and it can assist learning by providing an alternave way of presenng instrucons
and content. Game based learning and serious games can promote student movaon and
interest in subject maer, enhancing thus the eecveness of learning. Learning through
games oers increased movaon and interest to learners through the role of “fun” in learn-
ing. Adding fun into the learning process makes learning not only more enjoyable and com-
pelling, but more eecve as well (Prensky, 2002, p. 4). One of the main characteriscs of
a serious game is the fact that the instruconal content is presented together with fun ele-
ments. A game that is movang makes learners to become personally involved with playing
it in an emoonal and cognive way. By engaging in a dual level, their aenon and mova-
on is increased and that assists their learning.
There is credible research that suggests that today’s students have a dierent 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 educaon. They were extensively used trial and error, they
were welcoming contribuon and instrucon from peers, and they were emphasising on
‘just in me’ learning to full their needs and complete their tasks. All of these skills are
considered essenal in the modern world and serious games can assist towards developing
and praccing them.

eLearning
Papers
25
www.elearningpapers.eu
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
n.º 25 • July 2011
2
From the eld
2. Serious Games in Education
Serious Games are perceived as games that engage users in
acvies other than pure entertainment. They involve goal
orientated tasks based either in real world or non-real world
scenarios and aim to improve the player’s motor and cognive
skills. Most oen they are used for corporate training, educa-
on, problem solving, military training, health care, government
management, disaster management. Serious games are slowly
becoming a powerful tool in educaon (Torrente, Moreno-Ger,
Fernández-Manjón & del Blanco, 2009).
Whilst Serious Games (SGs) are increasingly becoming accepted
as a learning tool, the debate connues about what makes a
game eecve and how it should be used. Making “intellectual-
ly appropriate, challenging and enriching” games is considered
a key research challenge together with the integraon of SGs
into the learning process (de Freitas, 2006).
Serious Games oer a range of benets such as making users
feel responsible for success according to their acons, match
high-quality content and high engagement, turn mistakes into
learning elements avoiding the message that an error is some-
thing that cannot be recovered, allow problem based learning,
situated learning and make users feel more comfortable with
the exercise etc. SGs oer the ability to parcipants to assume
an acve role in a situated and experienal learning process.
For example, Squire (2007) referring to his personal experience
describes h-grade kids interacng as equals with computer
programmers from the Netherlands, improving their spelling
through this interacon, and before long they were scripng
their own secons of the game-parcipang in the design of a
new world. Furthermore, it is common pracce nowadays for
millions of children to learning history rst informally through
games and then formally through books and educaonal mate-
rial.
It is also widely accepted that educaonal games can increase
the aracveness of learning, giving a powerful tool in the eort
against de-movaon and dropouts, two issues largely aecng
academic performance and formal and informal learning in gen-
eral. Moreover, Serious Games can help to connect specic con-
tents and skills with a friendly environment, where the student
is able to play, probe, make mistakes, and learn (Gee, 2003; Van
Eck, 2006, 2007). More precisely, games employ strategies, such
as dierenated roles, visualizaon of performance and just-in-
me feedback, to guide learning in ways that are neither wholly
open-ended nor wholly directed but a hybrid of the two some-
thing Squire (2006, p. 53) have called “designed experiences”.
To assess this kind of “uency,” Squire (2006) suggests the use of
assessments that judge how well or not students idenfy prob-
lems within a domain; how well they can assess soluons; what
kinds of conceptual understandings they develop; and how they
communicate either verbally, wrien, visually, and “computa-
onally” (Squire, 2006). Furthermore, serious games can pro-
vide feedback in mulple formats the such as charts, graphs,
wrien, mulmedia, synchronous and asynchronous peer feed-
back and assessments, and so on, that might be leveraged to
support learning in diverse sengs. As such, games themselves
may be much beer forms of assessment than tradional meth-
ods in both formal and informal sengs (Squire, 2006).
Serious Games oer learning experiences that engage users
and, through the use of novel pedagogic approaches assists in
developing higher levels of cognive thinking. Serious Games
can also incorporate data tracking to support assessment to
high levels of detail and provide tools for self-assessment and
analysis. Playing Serious Games, informaon and sensaons ex-
perienced remain strongly impress and let the player improve
percepon, aenon and memory, promong behavior chang-
es through “learning by doing”. Serious Games allow situated
learning and make users feel more comfortable with the exer-
cise. In fact, internalize something you acvely did is more sim-
ple than learning during tradional frontal lessons, a so called
“passive learning”. Serious Games are useful in the learning be-
cause they represent a new way to learn exploing the synergy
between emoons and learning (Pappa et al., In Press).
Despite the widespread use of commercial games and the in-
creased aenon that the domain of games-based learning has
received, strategies for supporng the more ecacious meth-
ods of learning with games were uncertain unl very recently.
In a study undertaken by de Freitas and Oliver (2006), tutors
were unsure which games to use, which context to use games
and how they could be evaluated and validated. This work led
to the development of conceptual frameworks that were subse-
quently used for tesng game-based learning. In parcular the
four dimensional framework proposed by de Freitas and Oliver,
(2005) with its four dimensions of the learner, pedagogies used,
the representaon of the game itself and the context, allowed
researchers to evaluate serious games and to interrogate what
metrics and measures could be used both to validate game-
based learning, and to support the learning design process. The

eLearning
Papers
25
www.elearningpapers.eu
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
n.º 25 • July 2011
3
From the eld
eVITA approach was based on the four dimensional framework
and it produced four dierent serious games, based on four dif-
ferent pedagogical approaches.
Most of what happens with technology outside the classroom
was and sll is according to Squire (Squire, 2007) ignored. He
(Squire, 2007) advocates that there is a need for mixed ap-
proaches that combine instrucon with well-designed feedback
and scaolding acvies. More precisely, there is a need for
incorporang formave assessment pracces into formal and
maybe into informal learning. For doing so, it is necessary to
change classroom tradional acvies and interacons among
students and teachers (Bell & Cowie, 2001), to change the tra-
dional communicaon, and to give students more independ-
ence, acvity and intenonality in their learning that go beyond
tradional intrinsic and extrinsic movaon (Bereiter & Scar-
damalia, 1989; Scardamalia, 2002).
Serious games can be used as addional opon to classroom
lecturing. The intenon of serious games is to address new ways
of ICT based instruconal design and at the same me to pro-
vide learners the possibility to acquire skills and competencies.
By means of serious games learners/players should be able to
apply factual knowledge, learn on demand, gain experiences in
the virtual world that can later shape their behavioural paerns
and directly inuence their reecon, etc. (Pivec & Kearney,
2007).
Squire (Squire, 2006, 2007) is arguing that instruconal theory
approaches need to seek to explain how parcular game-based
approaches work within parcular contexts. This is what eVI-
TA is ambious of doing. By developing four dierent versions
based on four dierent pedagogies, eVITA evaluates how these
four dierent approaches work within parcular context and in
this case in the context of intergeneraonal learning and in for-
mal and informal learning.
3. Formal and non-formal learning
In the past diverse aempts were made to dene formal, non-
formal and informal learning as well as to provide main indi-
cators for their occurrence. The CEDEFOP glossary (Tissot, P.,
2000; Tissot, P., 2004) aer intensive literature review in Europe
denes as follows: formal learning consists of learning that oc-
curs within an organised and structured context (formal edu-
caon, in-company training), and that is designed as learning,
formal learning may lead to formal recognion (cercaon).
Non-formal learning consists of learning embedded in planned
acvies that are not explicitly designated as learning, but
which contain an important learning element. Informal learning
is dened as learning resulng from daily life acvies related
to work, family, or leisure. It is oen referred to as experien-
al learning and can, to a degree, be understood as accidental
learning.
According to these denions we could place Serious Games
learning acvies as non-formal learning acvies. Although
they are explicitly designed for learning, if well designed learn-
ing occurs as a side eect of gaming. The approach can be dif-
ferent, if we approach Serious Games as learning elements that
can be integrated in mulple learning environments. In this way
Serious Games can be a part of formal, non-formal or informal
learning sengs. According to Colardyn and Bjørnåvold (2005)
the dierent learning forms have to be approach in a two di-
mensional framework: 1. Structure of the context 2. Intenon
to learn.
Intention to learn
Structure of the context Learning is intentional Learning is non-intentional
Planned learning activities Formal learning
Planned activities Non-formal learning
(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).

eLearning
Papers
25
www.elearningpapers.eu
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
n.º 25 • July 2011
4
From the eld
Depending on the adopted perspecve, Serious Games can be
framed in dierent areas of the above table: If dened as an
independently running learning environment with integrate
pedagogical elements such as didaccal design, help, phases,
assessment and feedback, social interacon applicaons, etc.
Serious Games are aimed at intenonal learning and usually
embedded in planned learning acvies. In this case we talk
about formal learning. If we switch the perspecve and observe
Serious Games as one possible didaccal element of a more
complex learning environment, which can be intenonal (in the
educaonal context) but also non-intenonal (purely gaming)
and it can be planned (in the classroom) or non-planned (eve-
rywhere) as merely leisure acvity. Then we can dene Serious
Games as suitable elements in every type of learning. And this
is one parcular gain of Serious Games in educaon. Educa-
on is heading to a big change. The lines between formal and
informal, planned or unplanned learning are more and more
blurred, and mostly a shi to less formal educaon occurs.
Seon-Green (2004) menons that the use of computer in and
outside the classroom allow children and young people a wide
variety of acvies and experiences that can support learning,
yet many of these transacons do not take place in tradional
educaonal sengs, oen synonymous for formal learning. In
this contextual change Serious Games contain a great potenal
to a) set clear pedagogical aims but at the same me b) pro-
vide an open learning environment, supporng each individual
learning choice and learning-movaon. Serious Games does
not restrain when, where and why learning occurs.
The American Naonal Educaonal Technology Plan 2010 (short
NETP) presents a model of 21st century learning powered by
technology, with goals and recommendaons in ve areas:
learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and producv-
ity. The plan calls for engaging and empowering learning experi-
ences for all learners. It wants to bring state-of-the art technol-
ogy into learning to enable, movate, and inspire all students,
regardless of background, languages, or disabilies, to achieve.
It leverages the power of technology to provide personalized
learning instead of a one-size-ts-all curriculum, pace of teach-
ing, and instruconal pracces. Serious Games would t per-
fectly in this educaonal plan.
Serious Games support students mobility, can be developed by
students and shared with others, allows students to parcipate
in social networks to collaborate and learn new things. Quong
the Execuve summary of NETP (2010, p. 4): “Outside school,
students are free to pursue their passions in their own way and
at their own pace. The opportunies are limitless, borderless,
and instantaneous.” In this interpretaon of future learning Se-
rious Games are denitely excellent knowledge buildings tools
in every learning situaon.

Source: “Model of Learning” NETP (2010, p. 27)

eLearning
Papers
25
www.elearningpapers.eu
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
n.º 25 • July 2011
5
From the eld
however should be to balance the two, in order to create an
opmal experience and achieve a completely focused player
movaon in line with the theory of ow proposed by Csik-
szentmihalyi (1996). Successful games are those that can bring
players in a mental state of operaon, in which they nd them-
selves fully immersed in the game environment and compelled
to explore and experiment further. According to Csikszentmiha-
lyi (1996) the eight components that contribute to an opmal
experience are:
• Clearly dened goals
• Concentraon on task at hand
• Merging of acon and awareness
• An altered sense of me
• Clear and responsive feedback
• Balanced level of challenge and diculty
• A sense of control over the task at hand
• A challenging task requiring skill to execute
In this light, three crical dimensions emerge in educaonal
games development. In line with the threefold nature of SGs
as: (a) IT products, (b) Games and (c) Learning Instruments, ef-
fecve SGs need to be (a) technically sound and easy-to-use IT
products, (b) fun and engaging games and (c) eecve learning
instruments that lead to the desired learning outcome.
The preliminary validaon of the e-VITA prototype game (an ex-
perienal game evolving around the adventures of a journalist
who has to write an arcle about the “East and West block” and
the mes before the fall of the Berlin wall) involved a broad tar-
get group from several European countries (Spain, Portugal, Po-
land, Italy, Greece, UK), namely young people (school children
and young adults) interested in acquiring intergeneraonal and
intercultural knowledge by means of game playing. It featured
a quesonnaire-based evaluaon that was complimented by in-
formal interviews, during which users were asked to elaborate
on their feedback/rang. The three analysis dimensions includ-
ed: technical solidity & usability, cognive & aecve aspects
and pedagogical aspects (achievement of learning outcome),
yet parcular aenon was placed on usability issues and cog-
nive and aecve aspects, namely on the game’s graphical de-
sign, navigaon, story line etc, as well as on its ability to achieve
player involvement and movaon, or to induce enjoyment and
emoons (e.g. gracaon). The transferring of factual knowl-
edge was also invesgated.
4. The e-VITA experience
The e-VITA project (“European Life Experiences”) proposes
an innovave and creave methodology for intergeneraonal
knowledge sharing and transfer (intergeneraonal learning),
which combines storytelling and SGs. Intergeneraonal learn-
ing, which refers to the sharing of informaon, thoughts, feel-
ings and experiences between dierent generaons. Typically
this process is informal, taking place during regular everyday
exchanges with older relaves and friends, but can also be pro-
moted through organised or planned acvies (e.g. elderly peo-
ple making lectures in schools, school children vising nursing
homes, reminiscence projects, etc).
e-VITA, in addion to demonstrang the learning potenal of
SGs for the purposes of intergeneraonal learning, is also set
to highlight and invesgate important aspects of games design.
In parcular, the project explores the pedagogic dimension of
SGs through the adopon of four diering approaches, imple-
mented and analysed in the form of four disnct SGs. Each has
the same learner, context, and representaonal medium, yet
the pedagogic underpinnings are varied so as to provide a basis
for comparave study. The four approaches include:
1. A narrave-based game which uses storytelling to achieve
engagement and ow; in this respect it can be seen to
draw on oral history pedagogy (King & Stahl, 1990);
2. An experienal game, where the player is transferred into
the state of aairs faced by the narrator, and as such in-
uenced by situave pedagogy;
3. A puzzle-based game, wherein the player has to solve
puzzles and overcome challenges in order to proceed,
and nally;
4. An exploratory game focused on increasing the learner’s
zone of proximal development by direcng them to web
and other external material and resources in order to
overcome the challenges or problems presented by the
game.
Overall, games represent a complex electronic medium, de-
signed to allow users to experience an artefact, a situaon etc.
Seng up eecve SGs is a complex task that requires mecu-
lous planning following a holisc examinaon of a number of
parameters. Oen game design either focuses solely on the
learning goal (e.g. on teaching a specic skill or procedure) thus
giving player entertainment a lesser role, or accentuates the fun
elements of game playing at the cost of learning. The purpose

eLearning
Papers
25
www.elearningpapers.eu
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
n.º 25 • July 2011
6
From the eld
Overall the evaluaon results were sasfactory. Some aspects
of the game were cricised, yet all aributes have received a
posive rang. For example this was the case with the game’s
“graphical design” and “navigaon”. Among the crics some
quesoned the use of two-dimensional design which they char-
acterised as “Old”, others the use of photographs, the design
of the characters, the use of colour, the lack of movement etc.
Most users responded that they had no problem concentrang
while enjoying the contents of the game. Yet the majority disa-
grees that “the acvies proposed in the game were engaging
and “kept interest alive”.
perience and they believe the gaming experience improves the
retenon of new knowledge gained.
Similarly, varying points of view were recorded among male and
female respondents. Based on the evaluaon results it would
seem that the prototype game appeals more to female users.
More specically, female gamers appreciate more look of the
game and also have a more clear view of the game’s objecves,
appreciate more the instrucons and feedback provided during
and at the end of the game, would be more movated to seek
addional informaon aer having played the game and also
Figure 1: Deviation on preference between under 20 and over 20
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
game design is
attractive
game content
is clear
feeling at ease
while playing
If it was a free
practice on an
argument of
easier to
remember the
new things I
20-
20+
Some dierences 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 signicant variaons with re-
spect to the country.
Figure 1 illustrates the major points of
deviaon 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 beer the
content of the game and appreciate
more the way the dierent life situa-
ons are presented. Older users would
be more interested in repeang the ex-
would be more willing to repeat the
experience compared to male users.
Figure 2 illustrates the major points of
deviaon recorded.
These gender and age dierences
that are oen evident in leisure gam-
ing clearly stress the need to take
gender and age into consideraon
during game design. This clearly dem-
onstrates that it is dicult to create
a game that appeals equally to all.
The paerns of game-play of the in-
tended target group should be taken
into consideraon during SGs design,
in order to achieve an opmal mix be-
tween educaon and entertainment.
Figure 2: Differences on preference between males and females


eLearning
Papers
25
www.elearningpapers.eu
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
n.º 25 • July 2011
7
From the eld
when some groups of the young target group were interviewed
both in Italy and in Germany. Overall around 90 students were
interviewed (Hetzner & Pannese, 2009), both teen-agers in the
14-18 years age group and university students (Pannese, Hall-
meier, Hetzner & Confalonieri, 2009). This parcipatory ap-
proach already underlined several aspects, like the dierence in
expectaons which vary quite substanally between the teen-
ager groups and the university students, although again this
dierence is reduced, once teen-agers are able to focus on se-
rious games as alternave learning means to some more “clas-
sical” or “formal” approach, which they consider boring and
denitely non-entertaining. Making them imagine that informal
approaches like gaming could be introduced in their formal cur-
ricula and lessons, makes them much more exible and able to
accept compromise as well as it reduces their expectaons. This
was denitely the case when discussing the gaming interface
in the above menoned focus groups. While to them a game
interface must denitely be a high sophiscated 3D, especially
for males, when considering an informal learning approach,
they would “surrender” accepng 2D, simple interface. Univer-
sity students on the other hand tend to have expectaons that
are more similar to the teachers’ ones: they concentrate much
more on the contents and on the engagement that is induced by
interesng and somemes surprising, new informaon. Teach-
ers denitely concentrate on contents that must be in line with
topics that they teach in formal lessons and need some certain-
ty that no bias was introduced for narrave or engagement rea-
sons. They envisage some games that can guarantee a exible
use for them, a meaningful experience for the learners, some
cross-discipline content to work on students skills and enable
them to bridge gaps between one subject and another. These
gaps are somemes even provoked by formal lessons, when
each teacher considers their subjects and no exercise allows
some crical thinking about connecons between dierent top-
ics and subjects. The point in this context is denitely reecon
that can be triggered through the gaming experience. As Wa
(2009) puts it, it is the intended result of playing the game that
denes it as serious, not the playing acvity itself.
Interesngly enough, most of the expectaon to have fun and be
acve must be used and enhanced by teachers: it is the way to
introduce the informal factors in the formal seng that makes
every feedback and the whole experience meaningful and that
allows to maximize context-bound reecon and thus situated
learning. Very much of the learning outcome depends on the
overall experience set up around and with the game, turning
game play into a social acvity. This is true within a group or in a
While SGs have a clear value for transming explicit, factual
knowledge, perhaps their greater strength relates to the trans-
ferring of tacit knowledge, skills, behaviours that can be embed-
ded in games. The purpose of SGs used in the context of inter-
generaonal learning, is not only to engage/entertain younger
generaons of players, or convey praccal or historical informa-
on about past decades, but rather to immerse players in this
era and allow them to experience the life of older generaons.
In this light it would be dicult for many users to put into words
what they have learning by playing this game.
5. Conclusions: Challenges in design and
development of games for formal-
informal learning
The Games are normally by their intrinsic nature a means for in-
formal learning, although they can be used in formal sengs as
well as for self-regulated learning. Independently on how they
might be used, there are several challenges that designers and
developers of serious games must face, some pertaining more
to the learning aspect, some more to the gaming aspect and
some others to technological and implementaon details.
To sum up the most frequent challenges the following can be
listed:
• matching users’ expectaons
• matching trainers’ expectaons
• nding balance between learning & fun/engagement
• nding a form suited for self-learning but also for introduc-
on in a training programme at the same me to guarantee
freedom of use
• giving enough guidance without taking the challenge away
and without interfering with the narrave and the game
play
• how to give meaningful feedback
• how to make it a meaningful experience
• how to involve the emoonal side of the learner
• how to consider gender-dependent aspects
• being close to context (no bias in the content to introduce
narrave aspects)
• graphical appeal
We will not enter in technological details here, but we will re-
ect about and invesgate some of the challenges that emerged
already from the 2 focus groups held during the e-VITA project,

eLearning
Papers
25
www.elearningpapers.eu
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
n.º 25 • July 2011
8
From the eld
classroom but also in self-regulated learning with online group
dynamics and social online interacon around the game. This
social phenomenon can be observed even with simple exam-
ples (not even serious games) in Facebook, like FarmVille for
example.
At the same me, the core role of the teacher is determining
if a good balance between fun and learning can be reached.
Obviously the serious game itself must already contain some
valid learning elements as well as some engaging aspects but
the whole experience can be changed or even reversed accord-
ing to the specic 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 supporng and teaching? This has to do once
more with meaningful feedback as well: in order to be mean-
ingful, feedback should again probably be adapve to the spe-
cic user/player and his or her specic competences or level of
experse (Bente & Breuer, 2009). On the one hand feedback
must be given within the game play (without disturbing or inter-
rupng this) and as part of the game, which means that careful
aenon must be given by learners to details of dialogues or
happenings that should unveil what other characters think, how
they perceive the player’s acons or how the dynamics of the
acon change. On the other hand a nal, explicit feedback must
be given, which allows analyzing every decision, behaviour and
consequence during the game play.
To conclude, there is no unambiguous answer to the challenges
while confronng with the creave experience of conceiving a
serious game: everything must carefully de designed and de-
veloped according to the specic use that will be done of the
serious game, of the target group, their skills, preferences, ex-
perience with these tools, the experience of the teacher and
the role that informal methods will take up in formal learning
sengs. Probably the reason for this is, as Wa (2009) puts it,
that serious games research nowadays is facing the same chal-
lenges that HCI (Human-Computer-Interacon) was facing 15
years ago.

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

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