Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
information
Article
Practical Methodology for the Design of Educational
Serious Games
Frutuoso Silva 1,2
1Department of Computer Science, University of Beira Interior, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal; fsilva@di.ubi.pt
2Instituto de Telecomunicações, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal
Received: 13 November 2019; Accepted: 20 December 2019; Published: 24 December 2019
Abstract:
Educational serious games are primarily intended to teach about or train on a subject.
However, a serious game must also be catchy for the player to want to play it multiple times and
thus learn while playing. The design of educational serious games includes game experts and
pedagogical experts that must be able to efficiently communicate to produce a product that is both
educationally efficient and fun to play. Although there are some design frameworks to help with this
communication, they are usually more conceptual and do not distinguish the fun factor from the
learning contents well, making communication difficult. In this paper, a new practical methodology
is presented to support the design process of this kind of digital games. This methodology is more
all-encompassing because it identifies all the main steps that are needed to define the learning
mechanisms in an educational serious game, from topic choice to user experience. It also separates
the game’s learning contents from other mechanics used to keep the game fun to play. Finally, some
practical examples are shown, illustrating the use of this methodology.
Keywords:
educational-game design; design methodology; educational serious games; games-based
learning; serious games for learning
1. Introduction
Nowadays, games are part of our culture and lives, and are used mainly for entertainment. People
play games to escape the real world, work or school, and its social norms [
1
]. They value the sensations
from doing new things, and trying new challenges, strategies for problem solving, and participating in
social experiences. Lindley [
2
] proposed a game taxonomy that distinguishes between game forms and
functions on the basis of narrative, repetitive gameplay, and simulation, beyond other classification
dimensions, from virtual to physical gaming, and from fictional to nonfictional gaming. There is
therefore a wide range of game types, which make the design process complex. However, there
are games explicitly produced for reasons beyond entertainment, i.e., serious games [
3
]. Serious
games are not purely designed for entertainment, but to accomplish something meaningful in the real
world [
4
]. For example, exergames are a type of game with real-world meaning because they promote
physical exercise [
5
,
6
]. Nevertheless, Botte et al. [
7
] proposed a taxonomy that defines three types
of serious games. First, role-playing games without obligatory simulating situations borrowed from
reality. Second, business games in which the simulation is like a reality model that includes aspects
of those games. Third, games simulating reality in all its aspects. Currently, serious games are an
important tool in several areas like health, education, and industry because they facilitate the learning
and training process by engaging the user and increasing their motivation. They are particularly
very useful in education because they promote the participation of students in the learning process
when compared to traditional teaching methods. Students use new technologies on a daily basis
to communicate, access social networks, and play games, but these technologies are normally not
involved in the learning process. However, there are several studies that demonstrate the benefits
Information 2020,11, 14; doi:10.3390/info11010014 www.mdpi.com/journal/information
Information 2020,11, 14 2 of 13
of serious games in learning [
3
,
8
–
11
]. The success of serious games for learning and training has
turned video games into a good learning method, associated with new technologies. For example,
Baptista et al. [
12
] described the relationship between game categories and skill development using
serious games. However, the process of designing a serious game for learning is not easy because it
involves several professionals, such as game designers, programmers, and experts in the topic to learn.
Sometimes, communication between these professionals is not simple because they use a different
vocabulary and have different perspectives on the game. For example, a game designer wants to create
a fun experience, while experts are more focused on creating a learning tool. However, according to
Zyda [
13
], pedagogy must be subordinate to the story, i.e., serious game must first be fun, or the player
will not want to play it. Zemliansky and Wilcox [
14
] also referred to the need for a balance between
the art and science of game design for learner engagement while keeping learning integral and still
creating an enjoyable user experience. One of the mechanisms used in these games to learn/advance is
repetition, which allows players/learners to evaluate their performance on the basis of a trial-and-error
strategy, and encourages them to persist to complete the tasks. Nevertheless, there are not many
specific methodologies/frameworks to design educational games that include all key elements of this
type of game and that considers all professionals involved in its development.
There is not a single way to develop an educational serious game because it depends on several
factors, like target audience, teaching topic, and game genre. Game genre is determined by the
challenges that the player faces and which actions they take to overcome them [
15
]. However, most
proposed methodologies/frameworks to design (serious) games are based on mechanics, dynamics,
and experience. Mechanics is associated with the formal rules of the game that are instantiated at
playtime and influenced by the player’s input, forming dynamics (i.e., the run-time behavior of the
game) that creates an experience for the player. However, learning contents cannot only be associated
with mechanics, as other mechanisms are needed to support the learning contents. Nevertheless,
Barbosa et al. [
16
] presented a methodology to design and develop serious games that was based on
the concept of learning mechanisms that must be included in the game, either in storytelling, gameplay,
or mechanics. This paper extends this concept and presents a new methodology to design educational
serious games that is more in-depth and that can be easily understood by all the development team.
It clearly describes the learning mechanisms that can be incorporated in an educational serious game
and the remaining components that are used to make it fun. The applicability of the methodology is
illustrated on the basis of previously developed serious games that now contribute to its formalisation.
2. Related Work
There are several studies related to (serious) games, but here we only present those that present
methodologies or frameworks for designing (serious) games. However, game design is an iterative
process that consists of three steps: design, prototype, and play testing according to Sales and
Zimmerman [
17
]. Similarly, Robson et al. [
18
] presented a framework of gamification principles
that is also a cycle involving mechanics, dynamics, and emotions. As we show below, some of the
frameworks for the design of serious games are similar to this one.
Hunicke et al. [
19
] presented the Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics (MDA) framework, which
is a formal approach to understanding games from production to consumption. It breaks games into
their distinct components and establishes their design counterparts as part of MDA. Thus, mechanics
describes the main components of a game, dynamics its run-time behavior, and aesthetics corresponds
to the desirable emotional responses of the player. This framework is general for game design, but it is
not enough to help the design of serious games by itself.
Amory [
20
] introduced a theoretical framework for educational-game development. He extended
the original game object model (GOM) to include a new social space object and called it GOM version
II. This framework considers that an educational game consists of a set of components (objects), each
of which is described by an abstract and concrete interface. The pedagogical and theoretical constructs
are associated with the abstract interface, while the design elements are associated with the concrete
Information 2020,11, 14 3 of 13
interface. However, this framework is based on the object-oriented programming paradigm that makes
it too theoretical and not easy to understand for team members that are not programmers.
Winn [
21
] presented the (Design–Play–Experience) DPE framework for the design of serious
games for learning as an expansion of the MDA framework. It described the relationship between
designer and player, where the designer Designs the game and the player Plays it, which results in the
player’s Experience (DPE). Then, to consider learning games, he extended this framework to include
four levels for each component (i.e., Design, Play and Experience): Learning, Storytelling, Gameplay,
and User Experience. However, this framework is more oriented toward analysis of existing serious
games because it defines a uniform language for the team to discuss and critique a game’s design. It is
also not clear how levels are converted into game elements, making it more difficult to use it in the
design process of a game, for example, how a learning level is translated into game elements.
Yusoff et al. [
22
] introduced a conceptual framework for serious games where they enumerated
a list of components that must be considered for learning through a serious game. The diagram of
the framework has all the components, where the central component is Learning activity having the
learning contents on one side and the game on the other, but how these two components are related is
not explained. Thus, this framework does not help in the design process of a serious game.
Schottman et al. [
23
] presented a seven-step method to design serious games showing the
different involved actors and tasks to be accomplished. Most of these steps were also included
in our methodology. They also presented a set of multiview tools to help actors cooperate in an
efficient way.
Marne et al. [
24
] described a conceptual framework for serious-game design called the six facets,
where the type of expertise is identified for each facet. In addition, they defined a serious-game
design-pattern library to help teams solve some design problems and foster communication between
stakeholders, using the six-facet framework. Thus, this methodology is useful to understand the role
of each expert within the six-facet framework and to facilitate communication between design team
members using the design-pattern library. However, it did not properly define a methodology to
design a serious game.
Arnab et al. [
25
] introduced a framework to relate Learning Mechanics with Game Mechanics,
called LM–GM. As said by the authors, the framework is not a methodology to design serious games,
but more like an analytic tool to study the mechanisms that join the pedagogical and game features.
However, it is useful because it gives an overview of learning mechanics and game mechanics that can
be incorporated into a serious game.
Carvalho et al. [
26
] presented a conceptual model to understand the relationships between
serious-game components and educational goals. This model utilized the conceptual framework
of activity theory to perceive the structure of a serious game called Activity Theory-based Model
of Serious Games (ATMSG). In this case, the authors considered three components, i.e., gaming,
learning, and instructional components, where each was subdivided into actions, tools, and goals.
This model was composed of two phases, activity analysis and action analysis, and it was applied
in four steps: identify and describe activities; represent game sequence; identify actions, tools, and
objectives; and provide the description of the implementations. Therefore, this model is more useful as
an analysis tool than a serious-game design tool.
Roungas [
27
] introduced a conceptual model of educational serious games where he identified all
elements of an educational game and presented a class diagram of such a game. An important
aspect of his model is that it related level with learning outcome, i.e., every level required the
achievement of learning outcomes. It also presented the web implementation of his model, making
it a tool for the design process, and as a way to keep the game-design document (GDD) updated
and accessible during the design process. This implementation could also overcome the difficulty of
other, nonprogrammer team members to perceive the conceptual model. This model is more detailed,
but also more complicated to understand by all team members (i.e., game designers, programmers,
and experts).
Information 2020,11, 14 4 of 13
Lope et al. [
28
] presented a high-level methodology divided into five phases (i.e., startup, design,
production, test, and postproduction), where the design, production, and testing phases were similar
to the iterative cycle of the design process of Sales and Zimmerman [
17
]. In the design phase, they
considered a set of key components (e.g., scenario, characters, and educational competences and
challenges), and the game structure followed the theater metaphor, which includes the elements of
act, scene, action, and dialogue. In addition, they identified the main design tasks and related them to
different roles (i.e., project manager, computer analytic designer, client, writer, and educator). However,
it was not clear in this methodology how learning contents are translated into the game.
Pesántez et al. [
29
] did a systematic review of the approaches for serious-game design and
identified 11 approaches for designing serious games based on their selection criteria and period. Thus,
they identified four phases for the design of a serious game, which are analysis, design, development
and evaluation. For each phase they identified a set of factors and some pedagogical and didactic
aspects that must be considered into the design of a serious game. But how are these aspects and
factors combined to design a serious game?
Recently, Spyridon and Ioannis [
30
] described a conceptual methodology based on a task
repository where one can define task dependencies and the skills required for each task. The main idea
was to have an adaptive schema based on an engine with artificial intelligence that would prioritize
the next learning tasks according to prior knowledge of the player. Thus, it is not a methodology to
help the design of serious games, but a way to create an adaptive scheme for the learning process
inside serious games.
Furthermore, other methodologies/frameworks addressed only a specific game genre.
For example, Lope et al. [
31
] described a methodology to support narrative adventure games, where the
game was designed on the basis of chapters and scenes; Marchiori et al. [
32
] introduced a methodology
to create point-and-click adventure games; and Moya et al. [
33
] presented a framework for the design
of single-user task-based serious games.
3. Methodology Description
This methodology is based on the practice of serious-games development and takes into
consideration other methodologies/frameworks proposed in the literature, such as MDA [
19
] and
DPE [
21
]. However, our methodology is all-encompassing because it defines all the main steps needed
to define the learning mechanisms in an educational serious game. It starts with the choice of topic for
the serious game and the learning objectives associated with it, and ends with the user experience,
as shown in Figures 1and 2. Our methodology is described by Figures 1and 2—the former presents
the main game and the latter the additional learning mechanisms. Figure 2is explained in more detail
below. In Figures 1and 2, all steps represented by a rounded rectangle are related to the learning
mechanisms or learning outcomes, while other rectangles are associated with the game’s characteristics.
Arrows with dashed lines are associated with an iterative cycle where the game designer can redefine
mechanics or learning mechanisms to improve user experience or learning outcomes, respectively.
The MDA and DPE frameworks are more focused on the definition of game mechanics and dynamics,
and on the game’s user evaluation/experience. The expanded DPE framework also adds four levels
(i.e., Learning, Storytelling, Gameplay and User Experience) to the components, but these levels are
not easy to operationalize inside each component.
Figure 1shows that the first step in our methodology is to define the game topic and learning
objectives. It is then necessary to choose an appropriate game genre for the defined topic and learning
objectives. To choose game genre, it is also important to consider Bloom’s hierarchy of cognition [
34
],
which can be seen in the work of Sherry and Pacheco [
35
], who related game genres with Bloom’s
educational objectives, as shown in Table 1. Similarly, Baptista et al. [
12
] described game genres widely
accepted in the video-game industry, and separated action games from adventure games.
Information 2020,11, 14 5 of 13
Figure 1. Main steps defining main game.
Table 1. Game genres based on Bloom’s educational objectives (adapted from [35]).
Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation
1 - Shooters X X X X X X
2 - Action/
Adventure X X X X X X
3 - Fantasy/
Role-Playing X X X X X X
4 - Sports X X X X X X
5 - Simulation X X X X X X
6 - Puzzle X X X X
7 - Quiz/Trivia X
It is also important to consider the target audience with regard to their age and gender [
36
],
because some genres are more popular for different age groups depending on their learning style [
37
].
Honey and Mumford [
38
] identified four distinct styles of learning (i.e., activists, reflectors, theorists,
and pragmatists). Activists are people who learn by doing and like to involve themselves in new
experiences. Reflectors learn by observing and thinking about the experience, they spend time listening
and observing, and tend to be cautious to reach conclusions. Theorists need to understand the theory
behind the actions, and they learn on the basis of models, concepts, and facts; they like to investigate
and synthesize, and feel uncomfortable with subjective judgments. Finally, pragmatists are keen on
trying things out, they are practical, they act quickly and confidently on ideas, and get straight to the
point. They search for new ideas that can be applied to the problem at hand. Honey and Mumford
suggested that most people tend to follow only one or two of these styles.
Table 2shows the relationship between learning techniques, learning activities, and game genres
taking into account the learning styles. The game genres considered here are the same as in Table 1.
Another element that should be taken into account is the learning environment in which a game is
used. For example, if the game has to be used in the classroom, it needs to be based on short sessions.
It is also important to consider what kind of learning environment we want to create, collaborative or
individual. All these aspects must be evaluated to choose game genre.
Information 2020,11, 14 6 of 13
Table 2.
Relationship between learning techniques, learning activities, and game genres (adapted
from [37]).
Learning Techniques Leaning Activities Game Genres
Practice & feedback Questions, memorization, association, imitation 2, 4
Learning by doing Interaction, practice, drill, imitation 1, 2, 3
Learning from mistake Feedback, problem 3, 6
Discovery learning Feedback, problem, creative play 1, 2, 6
Task-based learning Understand principle, graduated tasks 5, 6
Question-led learning Question, problem 7
Situated learning Immersion 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Role playing Imitation, practice, coaching 1, 2, 3
Constructivist learning Experimentation, questioning 5
Learning object Logic, questioning 5
Coaching Coaching, feedback, questioning 2, 5
Intelligent tutors Feedback, problem, continuous practice 2, 6
After defining the game genre, it is already possible to create a story for the game, taking into
account the topic, learning objectives, target audience, learning environment, and game genre. Tied
in with the story are also created scenarios, characters, and other important elements to adequately
present the story to the player. For example, the game can have cutscenes to introduce some situations,
or a narrator to explain parts of the story or even offer tips to the player. A cutscene is a sequence in
a video game that is not interactive, breaking up the gameplay. This kind of element could be used
to show conversations between characters, introduce new gameplay elements, show the effects of a
player’s actions, or foreshadow future events.
Now, one can advance to the design of the game (i.e., defining the mechanics, dynamics, and
experience of the player) because learning objectives were defined and a story was developed to
support it according to the game genre. Thus, each game genre has a set of predefined mechanics from
which to select those that can be used as a learning mechanism, but also new mechanics that could
be included in the game. For those mechanics that can serve as a learning mechanism, one can then
develop the dynamics to give an experience to the user and transmit some knowledge (i.e., learning
outcomes). Dynamics defines the way the player interacts with the mechanics inside the game, and
how it can contribute to the user’s experience and their learning. For example, a shooter game can
serve to develop the theme of viruses in the human body, where the player uses shooting to destroy a
virus. So, every time the player destroys a virus, their health increases, or they gain points or skills to
advance in the game. Therefore, the learning outcome associated with this shooting mechanic is that
killing viruses is good for health.
However, other mechanics that cannot be used as learning mechanisms must be used to keep the
game amusing and engage the player. Otherwise, the game could defraud the user’s expectations.
Thus, for those mechanics, one must develop dynamics to offer a fun experience to the user.
Nevertheless, it is often not enough to use mechanics as learning mechanisms. In these
circumstances, one can add new layers to the game to support the learning process (see Figure 2).
Figure 2completes the diagram of Figure 1with the possibility to add learning layers to the main game,
for example, through minigames. Minigames could be puzzles or quiz/trivia. If the goal is for players
to learn on the basis of knowledge, comprehension, application, and analysis, according to Bloom’s
hierarchy, then a puzzle is adequate. However, if you only want to test the user’s knowledge, trivia/a
quiz is the right choice. Minigames can fit well in Bloom’s hierarchy and in player learning styles.
Information 2020,11, 14 7 of 13
Figure 2. Learning layers that could be added to main game.
Another way to create learning mechanisms is through the story(telling) of the game, for example,
using cutscenes, narration, or tips as a way to more clearly present the story and introduce facts or
situations that must be known and analyzed by the player. Storytelling is also a good way to keep the
player’s interest to discover the story’s outcome.
The game-design process is, of course, iterative [
17
], where we have a cycle with design,
prototyping, and play-testing. Thus, Figures 1and 2show this iterative process represented by arrows
with dashed lines. With this methodology, one can identify all elements of a serious game where
learning mechanisms can be incorporated, making the game-design task easier. To better understand
this methodology, some practical examples are now described to explain the four possibilities to design
learning mechanisms in an educational serious game.
First, one can use mechanics as a way to support learning content. For example, Aparício and
Silva [39] created a game to train the main math operations inspired by the Flappy Bird game, where
the player has to keep the bird flying but at the same time they can catch items like coins, numbers,
or operators. The numbers and operators are used to perform mathematical operations and advance in
the game, and the coins are used as a way to motivate the player because they can be used to buy items
to personalize the bird/character. Thus, catching mechanics is used to collect the math operators and
numbers involved in the mathematical operation, as well as the result of the operation (i.e., learning by
doing, but also question-led learning). If the player correctly solves a set of operations, they advance
to the next level of the game with another operator. There are four operators available (i.e., +, -, *, and
/) combined into different levels. The other mechanics to keep the bird flying and avoid obstacles is
used in the same way as in the Flappy Bird game. This strategy maintains the fun of the game, which
allows users to replay it several times just for fun. Still, each time users plays the game, they learn
because they need to perform operations in order to progress. Barbosa and Silva [
40
] also developed a
game about the human body’s circulatory system, where different blood components are considered
(i.e., red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and also bacteria). In this game, the player uses red
blood cells to catch oxygen to spread it in the circulatory system, avoiding the bacteria. It is a real-time
strategy game, where its mechanics are used as learning mechanisms. Catching oxygen, using platelets
to repair red blood cells, and fighting bacteria are essential actions to complete the mission of placing
oxygen inside the bloodstream (i.e., using role-playing and learning by doing).
Second, one can incorporate learning contents into minigames as a new learning layer of the game.
When learning outcomes require memorization, one can incorporate that in puzzles or arcade games.
These types of games challenge players with puzzles based on repetitive tasks (i.e., discovery learning
and learning from mistakes). For example, Barbosa et al. [
16
] presented a minigame to separate garbage
collected by the player, where the idea is to associate the type of garbage with the right color (i.e., blue
for paper, yellow for metal, green for glass, and red for plastic). Furthermore, this game is played
using the Xbox controller, where Xbox buttons have the same colors to reinforce the idea of separating
Information 2020,11, 14 8 of 13
garbage by its type. In this game, all levels include a minigame as a learning mechanism and a way to
complement the learning process inside the game (i.e., task-based learning).
Third, if the idea is to test the knowledge of the player, then a quiz/trivia minigame is the
best choice. It can evaluate the mastery of a subject on the basis of a question-and-answer format
because it requires information memorization. For example, Lopes et al. [
41
] developed a serious
game to teach concepts of cybersecurity to teenagers. It is a detective game where the player takes
the role of a detective to investigate cybercrime of ransomware in the first level. The game starts
with a cutscene that presents a teen using their smartphone trying to buy a pair of sneakers online,
and after downloading an application suggested on the website, his mobile phone is locked. Thus,
he decides to seek help from the police, where the detective tries to solve the problem. As the detective,
the player has to solve several minigames about sharing information in social networks, phishing,
and the importance of creating strong passwords. In these minigames, the player makes decisions
and learns on that basis, i.e., at the end of each minigame, each decision is explained to the player
regardless of the choice being correct or incorrect (i.e., learning from mistake). This way, the player
is always informed of the various situations that could occur on the basis of their online behavior
and decisions. In this game, to support the learning mechanisms related to each topic (i.e., sharing
information in social networks, phishing, and creating strong passwords), a layer was created for each
minigame. However, the main idea of the game remains the same: the detective must go to several
investigation rooms to solve the cybercrime (i.e., role-playing), where each investigation room includes
information and a minigame (i.e., using question-led learning) associated with the topic.
Fourth, one can incorporate the learning contents in storytelling by using cutscenes to introduce
relevant information to the player, as was the case of the game described in [
41
], where the cybercrime
is introduced using a 3D cutscene. Other ways are available too, such as with the use of a narrator or
by showing tips to the player based on the context of the game (i.e., using intelligent tutors).
Those are the four ways to create learning mechanisms inside an educational serious game that
help the game-design team to more easily communicate during the design process. However, one can
design a serious game that could include more that one or even all of these four situations.
4. Discussion
The design of an educational serious game is a complex process because it must fit the
learning objectives and be fun at the same time to achieve the desired pedagogical goals. Thereby,
a multidisciplinary team is required to design this kind of game, which includes at least game designers
and developers, and pedagogical experts. Nevertheless, there are several learning styles and game
genres [
37
], which make it more difficult to design a serious game because it can work for some
players but not for others. Thus, the choice of game genre must be done taking into consideration the
target audience and their learning style. For example, shooter games encourage the exploration of
a scenario, and finding objects and interacting with them or with other players. In role-playing and
adventure games, the player needs to gain knowledge, power, and skills to advance, overcome enemies,
and solve puzzles. However, these games require knowledge, comprehension, and application to
proceed, which can be used for learning purposes (see [
35
] for details about how game genres match
learning outcomes).
The proposed methodology identifies all main steps in the design of an educational game, from
topic definition to user experience (i.e., from beginning to end). It allows the identification of game
components that support the learning process and those that are only used to keep gameplay enjoyable
and addictive. Thus, it helps game designers to more easily communicate with developers and
pedagogical experts.
Some of the previous frameworks (e.g., MDA [
19
] and DPE [
21
]) were created to analyze games
and not necessarily design them. These frameworks do not specifically address aspects of game
design beyond gameplay, for example, they do not include aspects such as storytelling or game genre.
DPE [
21
] was extended to support educational serious games by including four levels: Learning,
Information 2020,11, 14 9 of 13
Storytelling, Gameplay, and User Experience. However, how these layers are used to design a game
is not easy to understand. For example, Winn [
21
] said: ‘In the learning layer, the designer designs
the contents and pedagogy, which results (hopefully) in teaching when the player plays the game’.
However, how are contents and pedagogy inserted into a game? Its terminology builds on different
disciplines that make up serious-game design; thus, it is more useful to discuss and critique game
design than to actually design a game.
Most frameworks for educational serious games do not explain how learning contents can be
inserted into a game. Normally, they only present a list of components [
22
], learning and game
mechanics [
25
], the game’s several facets [
24
], or the activities of the system [
26
], but they do not
explain how these aspects work together to create an educational game because most of them are more
oriented toward analysis purposes. For example, Lope et al. [
28
] used the theater metaphor in their
framework, which is more appropriate for the development of educational adventure games. Other
frameworks use language that is more related to computer science [
20
,
27
], making them too complex
to be used for game designers or pedagogical experts. Moreover, other methodologies only address
one game genre, such as [
31
–
33
], making them too specific. In our methodology, on the other hand,
we created a flowchart with the main steps to design an educational serious game that defined how the
learning and entertainment mechanisms could be created in the game. Therefore, our methodology can
be viewed as a process to create an educational serious game that is easily understood by the design
team; the collaboration of pedagogical experts is assigned to tasks represented by rounded rectangles.
Nevertheless, there is a game genre that does not fit well in our methodology due to its specificities,
i.e., simulation games that simulate reality, because this kind of game has its own rules according
to the system that it wants to mimic. Thus, most of the mechanics are associated with those rules,
and learning occurs on the basis of using the rules of the system (i.e., on the basis constructive learning
and learning objects).
This paper did not consider issues related to the assessment of serious games, but All et al. [
42
]
summarized the best practices to evaluate the effectiveness of digital game-based learning, where they
referred the use of control groups, and similar test pre- and postintervention to evaluate pre-existing
differences. Petri and Wangenheim [
43
] also evaluated the state of the art on how educational games
are evaluated, and they presented similar results. Thus, assessment out of the game can be done
according to the best practices, as mentioned by these authors. Assessment in the game was considered
by our methodology because one can add a new learning layer to the game with quiz/trivia for this
purpose. Assessment in the game can also be associated with points, levels, or badges.
A preliminary evaluation of the methodology was done with a group of master’s students
divided into six groups, five with three people from different areas, and another with only two
people. (e.g., computer science, arts, cinema, or game design), which proposed an exercise to design
an educational serious game using this methodology. After this exercise, all elements of the group
evaluated the methodology through a questionnaire with balanced responses using a five-point Likert
scale. Most students agreed with the statement that the methodology was useful in the development
of educational games, as shown in the left graph of Figure 3. When questioned if the methodology
helped communication between members of the design team, the answers were also positive but,
in this case, a few students disagreed (i.e., five out of 17, as shown in the right graph of Figure 3).
However, most of them considered the methodology useful because it specified the main steps
through which to create an educational game, and separated learning mechanisms from entertainment
mechanics, as shown in the graphs of Figure 4. Initially, the methodology was described by a single
diagram, and most of the students (i.e., 10 out of 17) considered it a little complex. The questionnaire
included an open question where students could suggest improvements to the methodology. In this
case, most of them suggested the simplification of the diagram. On that basis, two diagrams were
created, one to specify the main game and the second to specify the learning layers that could be added
to the main game, making it easier for them to understand.
Information 2020,11, 14 10 of 13
Figure 3.
Answer graph about methodology: (
left
) Is it useful in the development of educational
games? (right) Does it help communication between design-team members?
Figure 4.
Answer graph about methodology: (
left
) Does it help to specify game learning mechanisms?
(right) Does it help to specify game entertainment mechanisms?
In short, the methodology identified all situations where learning mechanisms could be created
and its relationship with game components, which facilitated and improved communication within the
design team. So, this simple methodology could help in designing better educational serious games
because it clearly defines the learning and entertainment mechanisms inside the game.
5. Conclusions
A practical methodology to design educational serious games was presented to facilitate
communication between design-team members. It identified the possible mechanisms for learning that
could be incorporated in the game to help the design process. This methodology makes a distinction
between mechanics that are used as learning mechanisms and those that are only associated with
gameplay to keep the game fun and addictive. It also defined new learning layers that could be
added to the main game, for example, through the use of minigames. Therefore, this methodology
was developed on the basis of the experience of the development of educational serious games from
several genres, which shows its versatility and usefulness. It could also be more easily understood by
members of the design team because it uses simple vocabulary and diagrams, which identify the four
possibilities to create learning mechanisms inside the game beyond entertainment mechanisms.
In the future, we hope to analyze a set of serious games on the basis of our methodology to verify
if more learning mechanisms that were not considered by the methodology exist. We also intend to
develop a hands-on assessment of the methodology with game-design and -development master’s
degree students and pedagogical experts, creating various multidisciplinary groups and asking them
to design a serious game using our methodology. In the end, we aim to ask them to evaluate the
methodology to identify what its strengths and weaknesses were. The idea is to evaluate these results
according to their role, i.e., evaluate what game designers, game developers, and pedagogical experts
have to say about the methodology.
Information 2020,11, 14 11 of 13
Funding:
This work was funded by FCT/MEC through national funds and, when applicable, cofunded by the
FEDER-PT2020 partnership agreement under the UID/EEA/50008/2019 project.
Conflicts of Interest:
The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to
publish the results.
References
1.
Lazzaro, N.Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion without Story. In Proceeding of the Game
Developer’s Conference, San Jose, CA, USA, 22–26 March 2004.
2.
Lindley, C.A. Game taxonomies: A high level framework for game analysis and design. Gamasutra Feature
Artic. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/71d9/939bcbac30e8c45760f801be292bf79b6fd2.pdf
(accessed on 22 December 2019).
3.
Michael, D.; Chen, S. Serious Games: Games That Educate, Train, and Inform, 1st ed.; Course Technology PTR:
Boston, MA, USA, 2005.
4. Adams, E. Fundamentals of Game Design, 3rd ed.; New Riders Games: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2013.
5.
Mueller, F.F.; Gibbs, M.R.; Vetere, F. Taxonomy of exertion games. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian
Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Designing for Habitus and Habitat, Cairns, Australia, 8–12
December 2008, pp. 263–266. doi:10.1145/1517744.1517772.
6.
Marston, H.; McClenaghan, P. Play yourself fit: Exercise + Videogames = Exergames. In Serious Games
and Multi-User Virtual Environments in Professional Development and Healthcare; Bredl, K., Bõsche, W., Eds.;
IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2013.
7.
Botte, B.; Matera, C.; Sponsiello, M. Serious games between simulation and game: A proposal of taxonomy.
J. e-Learn. Knowl. Soc. 2009,5, 11–21.
8. Griffiths, M. The educational benefits of videogames. Educ. Health 2002,20, 47–51.
9.
Eck, R. Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Rev.
2006
,
41, 16–30.
10.
Mouaheb, H.; Fahli, A.; Moussetad, M.; Eljamali, S. The serious game: What educational benefits? Procedia
Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012,46, 5502–5508. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.465.
11.
Boyle, E.; Hainey, T.C.T.; Gray, G.; Earp, J.; Ott, M.; Lim, T.; Ninaus, M.; Ribeiro, C.; Pereira, J. An update to
the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and
serious games. Comput. Educ. 2016,94, 178–192. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.003.
12.
Baptista, R.; Coelho, A.; Vaz de Carvalho, C. Relationship between game categories and skills development:
contributions for serious game design. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Games Based
Learning (ECGBL 2015), Steinkjer, Norway, 8–9 October 2015, pp. 34–42.
13. Zyda, M. From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Comput. 2005,38, 25–32.
14.
Zemliansky, P.; Wilcox, D. Design and Implementation of Educational Games: Theoretical and Practical
Perspectives; Information Science Reference, 1st ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2010; pp. 1–512.
doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-781-7.
15.
Adams, E. The Designer’s Notebook: Sorting Out the Genre Muddle. Gamasutra Feature Artic.,
Available online: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132463/the_designers_notebook_sorting_
.php (accessed on 22 December 2019).
16.
Barbosa, A.; Pereira, P.; Dias, J.; Silva, F. A New Methodology of Design and Development of Serious Games.
Int. J. Comput. Games Technol. 2014,2014, 1–8. doi:10.1155/2014/817167.
17.
Salen, K.; Zimmerman, E. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals, The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2004.
18.
Robson, K.; Plangger, K.; Kietzmann, J.H.; McCarthy, I.; Pitt, L. Is it all a game? Understanding the principles
of gamification. Bus. Horiz. 2015,58, 411–420. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.03.006.
19.
Hunicke, R.; Leblanc, M.G.; Zubek, R. MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research.
In Proceedings of the Challenges in Games AI Workshop, Nineteenth National Conference of Artificial
Intelligence, San Jose, CA, USA, 25–29 July 2004.
20.
Amory, A. Game object model version II: A theoretical framework for educational game development. Educ.
Technol. Res. Dev. 2007,55, 51–77. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9001-x.
Information 2020,11, 14 12 of 13
21.
Winn, B.M. Chapter LVIII The Design, Play, and Experience Framework. In Handbook of Research on Effective
Electronic Gaming in Education; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2007.
22.
Yusoff, A.; Crowder, R.; Gilbert, L.; Wills, G. A Conceptual Framework for Serious Games. In Proceedings
of the 2009 Ninth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Riga, Latvia, 15–17
July 2009, pp. 21–23. doi:10.1109/ICALT.2009.19.
23.
Marfisi-Schottman, I.; George, S.; Tarpin-Bernard, F. Tools and Methods for Efficiently Designing Serious
Games. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning (ECGBL), Copenhagen,
Denmark, 21–22 October 2010, pp. 226–234.
24.
Marne, B.; Wisdom, J.; Huynh-Kim-Bang, B.; Labat, J.M. The Six Facets of Serious Game Design:
A Methodology Enhanced by Our Design Pattern Library. In 21st Century Learning for 21st Century Skills;
Ravenscroft, A., Lindstaedt, S., Kloos, C.D., Hernández-Leo, D., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2012; pp. 208–221.
25.
Arnab, S.; Lim, T.; Carvalho, M.B.; Bellotti, F.; de Freitas, S.; Louchart, S.; Suttie, N.; Berta, R.; De Gloria, A.
Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. Br. J. Educ. Technol.
2015
,46, 391–411.
doi:10.1111/bjet.12113.
26.
Carvalho, M.B.; Bellotti, F.; Berta, R.; Gloria, A.D.; Sedano, C.I.; Hauge, J.B.; Hu, J.; Rauterberg, M. An activity
theory-based model for serious games analysis and conceptual design. Comput. Educ. 2015,87, 166–181.
27.
Roungas, B. A Model-driven Framework for Educational Game Design. Int. J. Serious Games
2016
,3,
doi:10.17083/ijsg.v3i3.126.
28.
De Lope, R.P.; Medina-Medina, N.; Soldado, R.M.; García, A.M.; Gutiérrez-Vela, F.L. Designing educational
games: Key elements and methodological approach. In Proceedings of the 2017 9th International Conference
on Virtual Worlds and Games for Serious Applications (VS-Games), Athens, Greece, 6–8 September 2017,
pp. 63–70. doi:10.1109/VS-GAMES.2017.8055812.
29.
Ávila Pesántez, D.; Rivera, L.A.; Alban, M.S. Approaches for Serious Game Design: A Systematic Literature
Review. ASEE Comput. Educ. J. 2017,8, 1–11.
30.
Spyridon, B.; Refanidis, I. An adaptation and personalisation methodology for Serious Games design.
In Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning, Odense, Denmark, 3–4 October 2019.
doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.25266.45763.
31.
De Lope, R.P.; Arcos, J.R.L.; Medina-Medina, N.; Paderewski, P.; Guti’errez-Vela, F. Design methodology
for educational games based on graphical notations: Designing Urano. Entertain. Comput.
2017
,18, 1–14.
doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2016.08.005.
32.
Marchiori, E.J.; del Blanco, Á.; Torrente, J.; Martinez-Ortiz, I.; Fernández-Manjón, B. A visual
language for the creation of narrative educational games. J. Vis. Lang. Comput.
2011
,22, 443–452.
doi:10.1016/j.jvlc.2011.09.001.
33.
Moya, S.; Tost, D.; Grau, S.; von Barnekow, A.; Felix, E. SKETCH’NDO: A framework for the creation of
task-based serious games. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 2016,34-35, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jvlc.2016.05.002.
34. Bloom, B.S.; Englehart, M.D.; Furst, E.J.; Hill, W.H.; Krathwohl, D.R. The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,
Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain; David McKay Co., Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1956.
35.
Sherry, J.L.; Pacheco, A. Matching computer game genres to educational outcomes. Electron. J. Commun.
2006,16. 1–2.
36.
Prensky, M. Computer Games and Learning: Digital Game-Based Learning. In Handbook of Computer Game
Studies; Raessens, J., Goldstein, J., Eds. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA 2005; pp. 97–122.
37.
Rapeepisarn, K.; Wong, K.W.; Fung, C.C.; Khine, M.S. The Relationship between Game Genres, Learning
Techniques and Learning Styles in Educational Computer Games. Technologies for E-Learning and Digital
Entertainment; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 497–508.
38. Honey, P.; Mumford, A. The Manual of Learning Styles; Peter Honey Associates: London, UK, 1986.
39.
Aparício, A.F.C.; Silva, F.G.M. Arithmetic Bird: A game for training mathematical operations. EAI Endorsed
Trans. Serious Games 2019,5, 17. doi:10.4108/eai.11-7-2019.159526.
40.
Barbosa, A.F.S.; Silva, F.G.M. Serious Games: Design and Development of OxyBlood. In Proceedings of the
8th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, Lisbon, Portugal, 8–11
November 2011, pp. 15:1–15:8. doi:10.1145/2071423.2071442.
41.
Lopes, I.; Morenets, Y.; Inácio, P.R.M.; Silva, F.G.M. Cyber-Detective—A game for cyber crime prevention.
In Proceedings of the Play2Learn 2018, Lisbon, Portugal, 19 April 2018, pp. 175–191.
Information 2020,11, 14 13 of 13
42.
All, A.; nez Castellar, E.P.N.; Looy, J.V. Assessing the effectiveness of digital game-based learning: Best
practices. Comput. Educ. 2016,92–93, 90–103. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.007.
43.
Petri, G.; von Wangenheim, C.G. How games for computing education are evaluated? A systematic literature
review. Comput. Educ. 2017,107, 68–90. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.004.
c
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
