Impact of Serious Game Design Factors and Problem based Pedagogy on Learning outcome

Full text

Impact of Serious Game Design Factors and
Problem based Pedagogy on Learning outcome
Fatima Gillani
Department of Software Engineering
National University of Modern
Languages
Islamabad,Pakistan
fatima.gillani@numl.edu.pk
Irum Inayat
Software Engineering and Automation
National University of Computer and
Emerging Sciences
Islamabad,Pakistan
irum.inayat@nu.edu.pk
Carlos val de Carvalho
ISEP | Instituto Superior de
Engenharia do Porto
Porto,Portugal
cmc@isep.ipp.pt
Abstract— Serious Games encompasses a wide range of goals
including social awareness, public health initiatives, marketing,
communications, industry, and so on but their pri mary concern
is Education and training. These games intend to teach subject
to players more than just emphasizing players’ amusement and
entertainment. The primary objective is to teach and train
players in a playful environment. Games are too often developed
in an ad-hoc manner while overlooking the use of pedagogical
aspects and active learning principles. In this paper, we aim to
address this issue by designing a serious game design model
using Problem-based learning pedagogical aspects to assist the
serious game designer. For this purpose, we mapped the
problem-based learning principles with the game design factors
and proposed a game design model based on 13 identified
factors that are Goal, Scenario Exposition, autonomous,
Control, Immersion, Challenge, Stimulus, Collaboration,
Feedback, Authentic Learning, and Assessment. Followed by
that, two experimental studies were conducted. First study was
conducted to measure the impact of problem-based pedagogical
game design factors on the learning outcome using an open
source game that was customized based on the proposed model.
The second study was conducted to check the impact of
Collaboration and feedback on learning outcome. The results
of the study reveal (1) problem based pedagogical mapped game
design factors have a positive impact on the learning outcome of
students and (2) procedural feedback to be the contributing
factor in enhancing student performance.
Keywords—Serious games, Educational games, Game design
factors.
I. INTRODUCTION
With the enormous increase in the availability of game
consoles at home and the use of mobile devices to play games,
people are spending additional time on game-related
activities. In fact, until the age of 21, on average, gamers
devote more than 10 thousand hours in playing games roughly
the same amount of time spent on education from primary
school to secondary school. This is a strong sign regarding the
significance of digital games in the lives of individuals [1].
This created the conditions for the widespread use of new
forms of training and education supported by digital games
[2]. Sawyer and Smith most recently established a taxonomy
of serious games, which they made available on the
organization's website and which provides a synthesis of uses
in many segments of society. Serious games have a broad
spectrum of application areas including disaster preparedness,
health care ( a recent study shows the efficacy of serious
games in the treatment of Phobia (mental illness)), military
training, and education, to name a few. Serious games seem to
be effective when it comes to cognitive learning outcomes [1].
Analysis, storyboarding, design, animation, video
production, scenario development, sound design,
technological and functional requirements, programming,
testing, and assessment are just a few of the methodologies
used in serious games[3][4].
The development of serious games combines play as well as
numerous other aspects such as learning content, motivation,
and feedback. It is not effortless for stakeholders, designers,
developers, and researchers to decide what steps to take from
a problem statement for developing a game. However, the
design process requires cautious planning for designing an
educational game that is beneficial to guarantee the accurate
balance between gameplay and achieving learning objectives.
[3][4][13]. It has been illustrated that applying the pedagogical
aspects for the development of the game improves the Game
based learning[7][12].Hence it leads to the use of pedagogical
aspects in learning for improving learning outcomes. Game
design and pedagogy are utilized in improving its benefits and
effectiveness in education that's why the game should
appropriately combine pedagogy and design elements [8].
Hence, we concluded that this field requires more established
and comprehensive guidelines. Also, researchers believe that
good pedagogy has been incorporated in good games [1][17].
To sum up, the emphasis on using pedagogical and active
learning principles in serious games is lacking in the present
models. Additionally, through our research, we identified that
a few game aspects have not been seriously taken into account
while developing game models. In this work we aim to
address this problem by proposing a serious game design
model using Problem based pedagogy (PBL), an active
learning strategy that allows students to learn while actively
participating in real-world situations.
This study reports the first for incorporating Problem based
pedagogy throughout the serious game design model. An open
source serious game has been customized based on the
model.Two experimental studies have been conducted using
the serious game First study was conducted to check the
impact of Problem based pedagogy on learning outcome.
Second study was conducted to check the individual impact of
Procedural feedback and collaboration on learning outcome.
A. Research Objectives
Our research objective for this study are:
1. To propose a model based on Problem based
pedagogy mapped game design factors.
2. To check the impact of Problem based pedagogy
game design factors on learning outcome.
3. To check the impact of Collaboration and
Procedural feedback on learning outcome.
314
2022 International Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology (FIT)
979-8-3503-4593-3/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/FIT57066.2022.00064
2022 International Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology (FIT) | 979-8-3503-4593-3/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/FIT57066.2022.00064
Authorized licensed use limited to: National University of Modern Languages. Downloaded on July 03,2024 at 03:41:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

II. GAME DESIGN FACTORS
In this section, we elicited key game design factors from
literature that were crucial for designing digital games. Table
1 shows the brief description of Game design factors.
Table 1 Game design Factors
Reference
Game Design
Factor
Description
[4],[10]
Game Goal,
Scenario
Exposition
Occurrence in the virtual world
through custom fit themes and
sensory play
[10],[23]
Immersion
Physically present in a non-
physically environment
[19]
Feedback
Putting output as an input in the
game world
[4],[25]
Collaboration
Playing together in order to
achieve a common goal
[4][9][11]
Stimulus,
Challenge
Challenge that stimulates a player
in game world
[22],[24]
Authentic
Learning
Investigation of task over a period
of time.
[4],[10],[21]
Independence,
Autonomous,
Control
Freedom given to a player in terms
of choosing between various paths
to a solution
[22]
Assessment
Measurement of achievement
within a game
III. GAME DESIGN MODEL
From the existing studies we identified serious game design
models that rely on specific game factors as shown in Table 2
Table 2 Game design factors based design models
Ref
Model
Game Design Factors
[4]
GBL
Goal, Mechanism, Fantasy,
Sociality, Challenge, narrative,
Value, Mystery, Interaction,
Freedom and Sensation.
[10]
Pervasive
Challenge, Phantasy,
competition, and exploration.
[9] [11]
ATMSG,
Extended
ATMSG
Gamification (goa ls,
sequence, actions, tools,
objectives, movement, time
pressure.), backstory, learning.
[26]
Cognitive
behavioral
Social cognitive, Intelligence
and enjoyment elements
Game design models that incorporated pedagogical game
design aspect while designing games are shown in Table 3
Table 3 Pedagogy based game design models
Ref
Pedagogy
Description
[9]
[11]
Activity Theory
A strategy with student as the main
focus of design and implementation.
[13]
Motivational Theory
Enhancing student drive and
dedication to the learning process
[26]
Behavioral Theory
Explaining human behavior by
analyzing human environment.
[15]
Flipped Classroom
Students are subjected to the material
at home and practice comprehending it
in class.
IV. PROPOSED GAME DESIGN MODEL
We proposed a game design model with Problem-based
Learning (PBL) pedagogy features in light of the literature's
findings. Our recommended model contains two fundamental
steps:
A. Mapping between PBL and Game design factors
Table 4 from P1 to P10 lists the principles of problem-
based learning and their mapping with Game design factors.
Table 4 Mapping between PBL and Game design Factors
Problem based learning Principles
[18]
Game Design
elements
Reference
P1: A task or a problem serve as a
foundation for all learning activities.
Goal
Scenario
Exposition
[4][10][16]
P2: The learner should feel he/she is
in charge of the problem and is
accountable for his/her own learning.
Autonomous
Freedom
Control
[10][21]
P3: Real Problems should be served.
Immersion
[10]
P4: The learning environment and
the task should reflect
accurate
representations of the professional
market.
Immersion
[10]
P5: The learner needs to own the
process.
Autonomous
[10] [14]
P6: Learner's reasoning should be
stimulated and challenged by
learning environment
Challenge,
Stimulus
[4],[9],[11]
P7: Encourage learners to compare
their theories to those of others and
to different situations.
Authentic
learning
[22] [25]
P8: The learning is collaborative.
Collaboration
[19][26]
P9: The learner should have
the
chance and encouragement to
reflect on the material covered and
the learning p
rocess.
Feedback
[4]
P10: Planning processes and
continuous monitoring underpin
PBL.
Assessment
[22]
1) Scenario Exposition and Goal: It is a fictional
narrative that makes use of virtual world through sensory play
and themes. Therefore explaining the fundamentals of the
game unit and how crucial it is to the development of the
game. [4][10]. Since all learning activities are based on a task
or a problem, we mapped scenario exposition and Goal to P1
[16][18].
2) Autonomous, Independence and Control: Former Two
refers to the flexibility offered to a player to select from a
variety of solutions [10]. Control refers to a user's capacity to
affect several aspects of their learning environment.
According to research, children can try ever-more
sophisticated learning tactics when given autonomy over
their education. A good game should provide or promote user
control over the gameplay, game world, and educational
experience[21]. Inferring from this description that the
control characteristic gives the learner a sense of ownership
315
Authorized licensed use limited to: National University of Modern Languages. Downloaded on July 03,2024 at 03:41:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

over the process or game. We can map these three
components to P2 and P5 [18][15].
3) Immersion: It is complete engagement of a player that
is termed as to be physically present in a non-physically
environment [10][14].We mapped with P5 and P6 as both are
related to the real problem and real environment respectively
[18].
4) Stimulus and Challenge: To achieve a Goal, Player put
in an effort that is termed as a Challenge that stimulates a
player in game world [4][9][11].These two factors are
mapped with P7 clearly stating stimulating and challenging
environment [18].
5) Authentic Learning: It has real-world relevance, and
requires investigation of a task over a period of time, and
from different perspectives. Thus it encourages to test against
alternative views [22][25].We mapped it with P7 that is to test
the learner ideas [18].
6) Collaboration: It involves playing together in order to
achieve a common goal [19][26]. We mapped it with P8 that
is focusing on Collaborative learning [18].
7) Feedback: It is termed as putting output as an input in
the game world to improve the output [4]. We mapped this
with P9 that is to reflect on the content learned [18].
8) Assessment: It is the measurement of achievement
within a game.Essentially, assessment teaches users how to
“play” the game by indicating what aspects of the game are
important. This is achieved by tracking performance,
tabulating comparisons between players, and providing
feedback to users [22].
B. Classification of Game design factors and their
relationship
We identified the following game design factors after
mapping problem-based learning with the game design
factors: Goal, Scenario Exposition, autonomous, Control,
Immersion, Challenge, Stimulus, Collaboration
(sociality),Feedback, Authentic Learning, and Assessment.
As indicated in the figure 1, we have categorised the game
design features into learning, educational, and gaming parts.
Goal challenge and feedback are categorised as game
components, stimulation, reward, and punishment as learning
elements, and scenario exposure, mystery, and curiosity as
entertainment factors [20]; these categories are depicted in
Figure 1.
V. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION
A. Experiment 1
The purpose of this study was to check the impact of problem
based learning pedagogical mapped serious game design
factors on the learning outcome. Factors that are considered
into account to incorporate problem based learning pedagogy
are Collaboration, Feedback, Control, Autonomous, Freedom,
challenge, Reward/Punishment, Scenario Exposition, mystery
1) Robo Bug Game
We selected an open source game named Robo Bug game for
this experiment. After the selection of the game we
implemented two versions of the game. Robo Bug Version 1
is considered as the version without game design factors.
Three factors were considered in the original game that were
Goal, Scenario Exposition and Challenge. Figure 2 shows the
Screen for version 1 game that is single player game and
Scenario exposition is reduced by eliminating the comics.
Figure 2 Robo Bug version 1
Figure 1 Game design Model based on PBL
316
Authorized licensed use limited to: National University of Modern Languages. Downloaded on July 03,2024 at 03:41:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Robo Bug Version 2 is based on the proposed model and has
considered the game design factors that are mapped with the
Problem based pedagogy. The considered game design factors
are Collaboration, Feedback, Autonomous, Goal, Scenario
Exposition, Mystery, and Reward/punishment .
In Figure 3, Scenario Exposition factor has been shown as the
screen is depicting the narrations to the player .
Figure 3 Robo Bug version 2 Screen 1
Collaboration, Challenge, Reward, Contextual and Procedural
Feedback are shown in Figure 4. Two players are playing
together to identify the problem as a team that incorporates
Collaborative factor. Time is also displayed to enhance the
Challenge factor and Contextual feedback because players
have to finish the task in allocated time. The factor of
reward is also included, and points are increased on
identifying bugs.
Figure 4 Robo Bug version 2 Screen 2
Figure 5 depicts procedural feedback, in which the players are
guided toward the correct response without really giving them
the correct response but rather assisting them in finding the
correct path.
Figure 5 Robo Bug version 2 Screen 3
Figure 6 shows the communication way between the two
players that are basically the Collaboration factor
Figure 6 Robo bug version 2 Screen 4
2) Experiment Design
Experiment was conducted in the Software Engineering and
Automation Lab at NUCES in Pakistan, using undergraduate
computer science students. The students with average
Programming skills were selected on the basis of a pre-
assessment conducted to ensure their skills.. PIDs are assigned
to each participant who met the requirements to play the
game.Participants were given an introductory session to
inform about the game and divided into two groups. One
group played the Robo bug version 1(without Problem based
Learning pedagogy) game and the other participant played the
Robo bug version 2 game (with problem based learning
pedagogy). Evaluation test was conducted to evaluate the
results.
3) Data Analysis
Following variables are used during test session:
x The number of correct responses
x The total number of responses: the value of this
variable is 9 as the total number of questions in the
session are nine.
Figure 7 and 8 show the performance of the participants (P)
who played Robo Bug’s version 1 and version 2, respectively.
Length of the bar indicates the correct responses scored by a
Participant (P).
Figure 7 Robo Bug version 1 responses
57
4687
0
5
10
P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6
Correct Responses
RoboBug version 1
Performance of all participant in terms of correct
responses playing Version 1 Robo Bug
317
Authorized licensed use limited to: National University of Modern Languages. Downloaded on July 03,2024 at 03:41:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

67
10 10 910
0
5
10
P 7 P 8 P 9 P 10 P 11 P 12
Correct Responses
Robobug version 2
Performance of all the participants in terms of correct
responses for Robo bug version 2 game
Figure 8 Robo Bug version 2 Responses
0
5
10
P 7 P 8 P 9 P 10 P 11 P 12
Correct Responses
R OB O B UG G AM E W I T H
P RO C E DU R A L F E ED B A CK
Performance of all the participants with Feedback
factor in terms of correct responses
Figure 10 Robo Bug game with Procedural Factor Responses
0
50
100
P 7 P 8 P 9 P 10 P 11 P 12
Time In Seconds
Robo Bug Game with Procedural
Feedback
Bug 1 Bug 2 Bug 3 Bug 4
Figure 12 Participants Performance using Procedural feedback w.r.t Time
An independent t-test was conducted to evaluate the average
of both the groups where students playing the Robo-bug game
with problem based pedagogical mapped game design factors
had higher scores (Mean=8.66, Standard Deviation=3.066)
than those who played the Robo-bug game without
pedagogical mapped game design factors (Mean=6.166,
Standard Deviation=2.166) with p-value =0.23217 and
t=2.28.
As evidenced by the results, participants who played the
Robo Bug game with pedagogically mapped game design
factors performed better than participants who played the
game without such factors.
B. Experiment 2
The purpose of this study was to study the impact of individual
game design factors on learning outcome. For this matter we
took two game design factors into account i.e. procedural
feedback and collaboration.
1) Experiment Design
Similar to the last experiment, this one was also carried out
with undergraduate students enrolled in the computer science
department at NUCES, Pakistan, in the Software Engineering
and Automation Lab. There were two groups formed from the
participants. One group played the Robo bug version 2 (while
using Collaborative Factor only) game and the other
participant played the Robo bug version 2 game (while using
Feedback Factor only). After the evaluation test was
conducted to evaluate the results. We measured the number of
correct responses, number of attempts, time to find the impact
of collaboration and procedural Feedback on learning
outcome.
2) Data Analysis
Following variables were used during test session:
x The number of correct response
x The total number of responses: the value of this
variable is 9 as the total number of questions in the
session are nine.
Other variables that also taken into account are:
x The frequency of number of attempts in finding the
bug
x Time taken to find bugs.
Figure 9 and Figure 10 displays the performance of the group
that played the Robo bug game using the collaborative factor
and Procedural Factor respectively.The length of the bar
indicates the correct responses scored by the Participant.
Figure 9 Robo Bug Game with Collaborative Factor Responses
An independent t-test was conducted to evaluate the average
of both of the groups and the participants who played the
Robo bug game with Feedback factor scored higher
(Average=8.1) than those who played the Robo bug game with
Collaborative factor (Average=6.5) with p-value =0.026.
Second evaluation for the time variable revealed that the
participants played Robo bug game with Feedback factor
have completed the task slightly earlier as compared to the
participants who played the Robo bug game with
Collaborative factor as shown in Figure 11 ,12 respectively.
Figure 11 Participants Performance using Collaborative factor w.r.t Time
4
77688
0
10
P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6
Correct Responses
R OB O B UG G AM E W I T H
C O L L A B O R A T I O N
Performance of all participant with Collaboration
factor in terms of correct responses
0
50
100
P 1P 2P 3P 4P 5P 6
Time In Seconds
Robo Bug Game with
Collaborative Factor
Bug 1 Bug 2 Bug 3 Bug 4
318
Authorized licensed use limited to: National University of Modern Languages. Downloaded on July 03,2024 at 03:41:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

0
5
P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6
Frequency of Attempts
Robo Bug Game with Procedural
Factor
Bug 1 Bug 2 Bug 3 Bug 4
Figure 14 Robo Bug Procedural Feedback w.r.t Frequency
Third evaluation for the Frequency variable(in terms of
number of attempts) shows that the participants who played
the Robo bug game with Procedural Feedback have identified
the bug in lesser number of attempts as compared to the
participants who played the Robo bug game with
Collaborative factor as shown in Figure 13 ,14 respectively.
Figure 13 Robo Bug Game Collaborative factor w.r.t Frequency
VI. CONCLUSION
In this study, we identified the game design factors pertinent
to Problem based learning principles. For the benefit of
serious game designers, we connected the game design criteria
with the problem-based pedagogy to aid game designers in
creating games that will enhance students' learning outcomes.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether
employing a pedagogy impacts learning outcomes. The
findings showed that taking pedagogical factors into account
had a favorable impact on the learning outcome. Also, we
investigated the impact of individual game design factors
(collaboration and procedural feedback) on learning outcome
with respect to time and frequency. The results indicated that
procedural feedback had a significant impact on the
aforementioned variables.
However, this study has certain limitations, such as a small
sample size that might have influenced the findings. Moreover
for future we aim to extend this work to check the individual
impact of all the mapped game design factors on learning
outcome.
REFERENCES
[1] P.J.M Wouters,E.D.van der Spek, H. Van Oostendorp, “Current
practices in serious game research : A review from a learning
outcome perspective”, Games-Based Learning Advancements for
Multi-Sensory Human Computer Interfaces: Techniques and
Effective Practices ,2009, pp 232-250.
[2] S. Çiftci, “Trends of Serious Games Research from 2007 to 2017 :
A Bibliometric Analysis,” Journal of Education and Training
Studies., vol. 6, no. 2, 2018, p. 18.
[3] M. Moradi and Y. Mahdavinasab, “Investigating the consideration
of explorer player style in Iranian educational games,” 2021
International Serious Games Symposium (ISGS), 2021, pp. 81–85.
[4] Y. Shi and J. Shih, “Game Factors and Game-Based Learning
Design Model,”International Journal of Computer Games
Technology ,2015,pp. 1-11.
[5] D. Ávila-pesántez, L. A. Rivera, and M. S. Alban, “Approaches for
Serious Game Design : A Systematic Literature Review,”
Computers in Education Journal ,vol.8, 2017.
[6] D. López-Fernández, J. Mayor, J. Pérez and A. Gordillo, “Learning
and Motivational Impact of Using a Virtual Reality Serious Video
Game to Learn Scrum,”, IEEE Transactions on Games ,2022.
[7] Hirumi, Atsusi & Stapleton, Christopher. "Applying Pedagogy
during Game Development to Enhance Game-Based Learning"
Games: Purpose and Potential in Education,2008, pp.127-162.
[8] R. Ibrahim and A. Jaafar, “Educational Games ( EG ) Design
Framework : Combination of Game Design , Pedagogy and
Content Modeling,”2009 International Conference on Electrical
Engineering and Informatics, 2009, pp. 293-298.
[9] M. Callaghan, N. McShane, A. G. Eguíluz, and M. S.Baden,
“Extending the Activity Theory Based Model for Serious Games
Design in Engineering to Integrate Analytics,” International
Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (IJEP), vol. 8, 2018, p. 109
[10] V. Visch, N. Vegt, H. Anderiesen, and K.V.D Kooij, “Persuasive
Game Design : A model and its Definations.” 2013.
[11] M. B. Carvalho, F. Bellotti, R. Berta, A. De Gloria, C. I. Sedano,
J. B. Hauge, J. Hu, and M. Rauterberg .“An activity theory-based
model for serious games analysis and conceptual design”
Computers & Education, vol. 87, 2015, pp. 166–181.
[12] P. Rooney, “A Theoretical Framework for Serious Game Design:
Exploring Pedagogy, Play and Fidelity and their Implications for
the Design Process", International Journal of Game-based
Learning, vol. 2, no. 4, 2012, pp. 41–60.
[13] R. Ibrahim and A. Jaafar, "Educational games (EG) design
framework: Combination of game design, pedagogy and content
modeling," 2009 International Conference on Electrical
Engineering and Informatics, 2009, pp. 293-298.
[14] K. Starks, “Cognitive behavioral game design: A unified model for
designing serious games,” Frontiers in Psychology, 2014.
[15] H. A. Abdelaziz, “Immersive Learning Design ( ILD ): A New
Model to Assure the Quality of Learning through Flipped
Classrooms,” 2014 IIAI 3rd International Conference on
Advanced Applied Informatics, 2014.
[16] L. Pagander and J. Read, “Is Problem-Based Learning ( PBL ) An
Effective Teaching Method ? A study Based on Existing Reserch,”
Institutionen för Kult. och Kommun.,2014.
[17] S. De Freitas and M. Oliver, “How can exploratory learning with
games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively
evaluated?,” Computers & education, 2006.
[18] F. S. De Oliveira and S. Santos, “PBLMaestro: A virtual learning
environment for the implementation of problem-based learning
approach in Computer education,”2016 IEEE Frontiers in
Education Conference (FIE), 2016, pp. 1-9.
[19] G. Ivanova, V. Kozov and P. Zlatarov, "Gamification in Software
Engineering Education," 2019 42nd International Convention on
Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and
Microelectronics (MIPRO), 2019, pp. 1445-1450
[20] B.Roungas,F Dalpiaz, “A Model-driven Framework for
Educational Game Design.” International Conference on Games
and Learning Alliance , 2015
[21] G. C. Natucci and M. A. F. Borges, "The Experience, Dynamics
and Artifacts Framework: Towards a Holistic Model for Designing
Serious and Entertainment Games," 2021 IEEE Conference on
Games (CoG), 2021, pp. 1-8
[22] V. J. Shute and F. Ke, “Games, learning, and assessment,”
Assessment in Game-Based Learning, 2012,pp. 43–58
[23] E. Braad, G. Žavcer, and A. Sandovar, “Processes and models for
serious game design and development,” Entertainment Computing
and Serious Games, 2016, pp. 92–118.
[24] J. M. Fernandes and S. M. Sousa, "PlayScrum - A Card Game to
Learn the Scrum Agile Method," 2010 Second International
Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious
Applications, 2010, pp. 52-59
[25] M. Critelli, D. I. Schwartz and S. Gold, "Serious social games:
Designing a business simulation game," 2012 IEEE International
Games Innovation Conference, 2012, pp. 1-4.
[26] K. Starks, “Cognitive behavioral game design: A unified model for
designing serious games,” Frontiers in Psychology , vol. 5, 2014.
0
5
P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6
Frequency of attempts
Robo Bug Game with
Collaborative Factor
Bug1 Bug 2 Bug 3 Bug 4
319
Authorized licensed use limited to: National University of Modern Languages. Downloaded on July 03,2024 at 03:41:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.