Serious Games - Science topic

Greetings,

Participatory Scenario Planning might qualify as a new addition to your list. This seem to be increasingly popular, at least in the U.S. West, where I am familiar with / contributing to a handful of projects that use this approach to join citizens/stakeholders and scientists to develop future visions. Part of this involves deliberation. My sense is that various scenarios are developed in some sort of social science or participatory fashion (interviews, focus groups), and that the various scenarios are then used to catalyze deliberation. Here is one reference:

I have reviewed some scientific papers that propose serious games (SG) and evaluate them, I've been disappointed by the fact that almost all of these works aim to simply evaluate the game's usability, whether using heuristics or methods such as the TAM (Technology Acceptance Model). In my opinion, as a serious game has a specific purpose, for example, supporting the learning process, the evaluation should explore the impact of the SG in different aspects, like engagement, retention, performance, etc. I believe it's possible to use some qualitative methods like a focus group, or even a controlled experiment.

Dear Prof. Bühler!

You raised a key issue. There is a need for understanding better modelling - concept of reality. Especially these days during COVID-19. So I looked up case-studies and relevant resources that have been carried out:

1) Alsamawi, F.N., Kurnaz, S. A framework for adopting gamified learning systems in smart schools during COVID-19. Appl Nanosci (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13204-021-01909-1, Free access:

2) Nieto-Escamez FA and Roldán-Tapia MD (2021) Gamification

as Online Teaching Strategy During COVID-19: A Mini-Review. Front. Psychol. 12:648552. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648552, Free access: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648552/full

3) Chaoguang Wang, Lusha Huang (2021). A Systematic Review of Serious Games for Collaborative Learning: Theoretical Framework, Game Mechanic and Efficiency Assessment, International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) 16(06):88, March 2021, Free access:

4) Julia Mullen et.al. (2021). Teaching and learning HPC through serious games, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, Volume 158, December 2021, Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S074373152100160X?dgcid=rss_sd_all

Yours sincerely, Bulcsu Szekely

I agree

“Seriousness” is an adjective for reference and its main purpose is training and investigation, and since training is a process of acquiring and transferring knowledge, skills as well as capabilities, this requires:

Determine the cognitive bases of the concept.

Defining "serious games" skills with training

Design a model to integrate "serious games" with training

Very interesting topic!

Maybe you want to consult this recent review by Davaris et al.:

Further, there has been some recent research on sexual health literacy:

Mika Stapelfeldt Thank you for your valuable suggestions, I will look into those and make a note of them.

Dear Dr. Pastoors!

I found a case study you might want to look at:

Ton A.M. Spil et sl. (2021). Are serious games too serious? Diffusion of wearable technologies and the creation of a diffusion of serious games model, International Journal of Information Management, Volume 58, June 2021, Citation:..."129 interviews to find requirements and validate first prototype of the game.Results are positive from a formal technology acceptance point of view showing relevance and usefulness." ,Open access:

Yours sincerely, Bulcsu Szekely

http://journal.seriousgamessociety.org/

Hello,

the CtF I have experience with have been single day events. That means the event itself is not where any learning is taking place. The important time, for participants as well as organizers, is the preparation. That is also where students learn, but the CtF at the end gives a huge boost for motivation and provides a target to define what to learn.

The topics that can be learned depend on the type of CtF you are playing. The CtF I participated in where focused on application security, very practical implementation and configuration vulnerabilities with the occasional reverse engineering of buggy protocols. It is your, assuming you are the teacher, responsibility to select a fitting curriculum beforehand. But there are plenty of challenges and writeups of historical CtF events out there.

And then CtF provide an opportunity to setup a whole setup for security monitoring and operational processes. But the focus with us normally has been on bug hunting and reverse engineering and that, in my eyes, is not sufficient to motivate a full course in IT-security.

CtF tend to require a lot of preparation and part of it is development of "sport utilities" like efficient flag-submission services or exploit automation, but given that you can engage your students deeper with the prospect of a CtF competition in the end, and the potentials to run a competitive group continuously running over many years, where knowledge and skills can be honed and taught by the experienced students makes up for all the work. And, it is, in my experiences, one of the most fun and most effective ways of standing by while students learn.

I'm not aware of pubic data of that kind. I'd try looking for a research paper that has collected the kind of data you want and just ask the researchers for a copy of their data.

This is a very pertinent issue. From the hypotheses which we drew from some strategic foresight exercices, we have studied along several years the developement of technology in order to see if these hypotheses were verified or not. That led us to note that there is a real tendancy to the change in work methods, in production organization, which is not really motivated by real needs, but by a simple will to change, because change is supposed to be good (agile firms, etc.)

Consequently, some hypotheses formulated in the articles, books, etc. listed below will have a short life. If you have enough time to read some of those papers, you should find several examples:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325627647_Regulating_the_OSH_impact_on_online_platform_economy_OSHA_Seminar_Brussels_A_strategic_foresight_study

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316243223_Modes_and_methods_of_production_in_France_in_2040

I have been conducting research in serious games for health for some time now. Our first thought on the subject was that the gamification of rehabilitation programs would make patients forget about their daily situation and focus on enjoying the session through solely playing the game. However, and after a number of clinical trials with patients and discussions with medical experts, we found that creating a link between the game and the rehabilitation of the patient can motivate them even more.

While patients would appreciate forgetting about their preoccupation through a game, clarifying how this game can help translate their effort into reality (i.e. helping them recover their range of motion).

I have read similar results in other research, notably for children with diabetes, who became more motivated when the game was presented as a tool that relates to their real life problem.

A. Fuchslocher, J. Niesenhaus, and N. Krämer, “Serious games for health: An empirical study of the game ‘ Balance’ for teenagers with diabetes mellitus,” Entertain. Comput., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 97–101, 2011.

I invite you to visit my profile if you wish to know more about our research.

Regards,

Halim

Dear Murat Yilmaz , I would like, my private email is paulo.ricardobm@gmail.com

Chinese logographic writing renders meaning through a symbol or picture, arbitrarily or vaguely related in terms of visual representation with the object or the notion it stands for, and is not initially based on phonological decoding although there is a word (pronunciation) attached to it. Please check my paper concerning the profiles for brain activation in reading Chinese characters DOI: 10.1016/S0911-6044(03)00027-7. I suggest, once you've got the neuroanatomy picture right, to come up with some brain training (neurofeedback) method to enhance the control of the respective areas and aim at character learning.

To conceive my games (gameplay, characters...), I use the typology of players by Richard Bartle. In his texts, you will learn that motivation depend of each people (explorer, social...). It's an excellent design aid.

I believe that it is especially challenging to design meaningful and theoretically-informed treatment- and control-conditions when evaluating educational games. Instead of comparing a game-based treatment condition vs. a non-game-based "conventional" control condition (which can be a rather fuzzy comparison), it often makes more sense to compare different design-variants of the same game. I recommend to read the following article, explaining different approaches:

Mayer, R. E. (2011). Multimedia learning and games. In S. Tobias & J. D.

Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 281–305). Char-

lotte, NC: Information Age.

@Elaine Hayashi

Thank you for sharing. It is very interesting and I have the idea immersive narrative is one way to go and provide the best results so far.

However my intention is to autotomize the process and not replace for example kiosks that do automated service. In fact in our project we are doing a kiosk that is automated and helps the deaf, which is the sort of thing I want. More like an improvement of the automated kiosks we have, or a automatic way to build immersive narrative for games. Because immersive narrative for games is not easy to make, requires a lot of specialists and has a big cost, which reduces content for blind and deaf.

I searching for a way to deliver the same content, to the blind and deaf so no one loses anything and so it can be inclusive and by being inclusive it could be potentially also immersive.

In your work there are many interesting details I will take in consideration and I think I can use them in a serious game, once again thanks for sharing.

Right now I have an idea for a serious game that could work and as it is being built I'm trying to think on scenarios where it could not work, because in the past we also made other games and they always had some issue, for example a turn game can make the players waiting for the blind or deaf impatient as they could need extra time to think.

@Francisco Queiroz

I believe that is indeed a solution, however that requires a lot of work and a lot of specialist. It is nothing something that can be currently generated. I'm looking for something that could be generated procedurally for serious games, that can be played by both blind and the deaf.

As each country has their own culture, so does the deaf community in each country, that makes the work too difficult if we have to have an accurate translation.

I'm currently gathering game mechanics for blind or deaf players that engage them to play here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_best_game_mechanics_for_blind_deaf_game_that_engages_everyone_to_play

@Yusoff Omar

@ Silvester Dian Handy Permana

Hello, thanks for the suggestions, I though about this before and I have some problems regarding it:

Lets take for example this product https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C2_kbjtjRU or any generic glove that exists on the market that can properly give feedback to the deaf/blind.

That type of feedback can be good for sports, race, adventure/exploring climbing, throwing games and actions.

Can give information to the blind without using audio about the object to the point it can help identify some objects without sound. For the deaf, input wise this has little use.

The deaf can use the gloves for sign language, to communicate with the game, however this is highly depending on the game mechanics and must make the game accept and wait for this inputs, which can be disruptive for the blind gameplay. Also there are other ways for the deaf and mute to communicate via digital keyboard and fast typing, similar to the broadly used in smartphones, this type of faster communication may be preferable in games where the action is faster like radio chat, or a more casual game, when you are in sofa and want to relax.

Regarding this last part of casual games, I tend to believe that casual games may fit better the deaf/blind as too competitive games may potentially exclude them, competition by itself excludes players with less skill, and we are looking for inclusion here.

With this in mind, and although there is a point that touch can be shared between deaf and blind so they can retrieve the same type of information, can these sensors be used in a casual game? Or it would be just a game that it is more fun to use the glove sensors than the game itself, and once they get bored of using the gloves they stop playing?

I believe this also comes from the idea that the deaf/blind do not need extra tools to be able to play a game normally, we are also planning to use brain sensors for the mobility impaired or muscle problems, but those do need to use it in order to send their outputs to the game, which differs from blind/deaf.

Hi,

I think you covered the most important ones. In your case, the time to reach the goal position seems to be also a relevant parameter. Check this reference:

Hope this helps...

I was looking for papers related to language tutor-related question generation (which might be slightly different from what you are looking for) a while ago, so my conclusions might be outdated. Basically what I found was quite narrow and didn't fit context-processing needs of mine.

Have a look at

When it comes to surveys, there are several attempts in specific fields and for particular tasks:

When it comes to surveys, there are everal s attempts in specific fields:

Peter, I believe that an important part of structuring you PhD topic is to develop a clear statement about the outcomes which you expect to deliver. 

Gamification is a popular application of technology to induce and support behaviour change. The behaviour which you hope to influence will (possibly) have an effect on the health of those people 'playing' your health games. 

That background leads to some important preliminary questions.

* What diseases or disease groups are likely to be improved through behaviour change?

* What are the changes in behaviour that will help?

* Can gamification induce, support or monitor those changes?

* What is the demographic/socioeconomic pattern of patients with your target diseases/disease groups?

* Which demographic/socioeconomic groups are likely to adopt and continue using a 'gamification' option as part of their health self-care?

* How good is the overlap between your 'disease' group and your 'user' group?

You may find that gamification is popular with 'People Like Us' (financially secure, tertiary educated, with good text, technical and health literacy), while the burden of chronic disease has its greatest impact on those who are the opposite - impoverished, poorly educated, and with low literacy.

Thank you, this is very useful!

I can't add much of a personal opinion (although I do think that if learning outcomes are the primary goal of the serious game, then those need to be measured). Here is some literature on the topic, however:

Mayer (2014) has an interesting chapter on appropriate measures with a very strong preference: "The single most important dependent measure in game effectiveness research is academic learning outcome." (ibid. p.38) He also discusses various measures that he considers inappropriate in that chapter.

Anetta and Bronack (2011) have edited a book on "Serious Educational Game Assessment". Various authors discuss qualitative assessment approaches in addition to traditional measurement therein.

The authors in Loh et al. (2015) approach the issue from more of a game analytics side than an assessment side, but do include assessment as well. 

Mayer, R.E. (2014). Computer games for learning :  an evidence-based approach. MIT Press.

Anetta, L. & Bronack. S. (Eds.) (2011). Serious Educational Game Assessment. Sense Publishers.

Loh, C.S., Sheng, Y., Ifenthaler, D. (Eds.) (2015) Serious Games Analytics. Methodologies for Performance Measurement, Assessment, and Improvement. Springer.

It looks like you're dealing with college students in a specialized, professional program. Is that right? It matters. Role-playing is inherently -- usually -- fun. I'd expect children to get into it, and I'd expect adults to get into it -- if they have engaged in it for intrinsic reasons, with no grade-related anvils hanging over their heads.

But when you're dealing with adults who are

1) expecting some kind of performance evaluation,

2) required to participate, 

3) and, quite importantly, unaccustomed to seeing this particular strategy used in a classroom environment,

then the novelty of the experience becomes a threat rather than a reason for excitement.

I've found that whenever I do anything unexpected while teaching college students, they become quite anxious as they try to figure out what the grade ramifications will be, and they tend to blame the new experience (rather than themselves) for their performance in the course, even when the connection is tenuous. I've had students blame group work that we did in week 8 for the deadlines they missed in week 4. When I point out that the arrow of time doesn't work that way, they get sullen. It's an emotional, rather than a logical, conviction that somehow the experience they perceive as threatening is the root of all of their problems. Those emotional responses can sometimes lead students to do things that seem illogical and self-destructive, including withdraw from participating, skip class, and so forth. 

Some suggestions I'd offer, based mostly on my own scar tissue:

1. Even a little research into change management strategies (well-studied in business circles -- see link below) will prove relevant. The emotional state of students in that class isn't terribly different from those of employees watching a shuffling of leadership in a corporation, -- or of faculty hearing that their university is adopting a new assessment system -- and similar strategies related to participation and communication can help defuse some of those issues. 

2. If you haven't already tried this (you might have), try running short ARGs with no grades or other consequences on the line other than credit for participation. Acknowledge explicitly that the experience may be unfamiliar and tell them that these activities are warm-ups. Show them how their performance would be evaluated for each of these activities, without the warm-up evaluations counting for anything. That might help them become comfortable with the activity and get to a place where they see it as less threatening. 

3. Consider basing any grades or consequences on conventional assignments, essays, tests, or the like, using the experience as material. For instance, they might participate in the activity for only participation credit and then write an essay (which is graded) based on their experience. 

4. Do the ARG more than once. After the first one, have an after-action review in which everyone talks about what happened -- what they did and didn't do, and how they might have handled it better. Then run another one. Students often withhold effort on new experiences, and if those experiences only happen once, then all you get to see is them treading water until the threatening new thing is over. When activities repeat, though, the second and subsequent efforts tend to be much better.

5. If I had to hazard a guess, you're asking mostly about a subpopulation that's resisting -- it's not everyone (I hope! :-) ). In fact, if your experience is like mine, it's a minority of the students that you're worrying about here -- maybe a sizable and frustrating minority, but a minority the same. At any rate, there are almost always some good students in the bunch who will get into a new activity. Those folks are useful because students tend to calibrate their own behaviors to what they think their peers are doing. For instance, student academic integrity has been closely tied in research to how honest students think their peers are.  When they think most of their peers cheat, they're more likely to do so, too. When they're in places where honest students are highly visible (like honor-code institutions), they're less likely to cheat. You can use this psychology to your (and student) advantage. Finding ways to showcase the students who are doing well -- using them as examples, making them more visible -- often helps a great deal. (When I teach online, I often post statistical overviews showing how often students are logging in, how often they're posting, and how the class is doing on quizzes. These updates never focus on or name individual students, but they help the less-engaged realize that they're not in the majority, and that tends to spur them to catch up.) I realize that with ARG, using this principle is tricky, since the whole idea in ARG is to pretend it's not a game while the simulation is conducted. But if you follow my earlier suggestions about trial runs and warm-ups, you can use the after-action reviews to try to focus the group's attention on the more engaged students. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying to ignore the non-engaged students. But they need to feel like individuals, rather than like members of a larger resisting culture. Talk to the resisting students one-on-one, but talk to the engaged students in front of everyone.)

That's probably a long enough answer at this point. :-) I hope you're able to make the ARGs work. They're a bold enterprise, particularly with pre-professional adults. They may not all appreciate that you're going through the effort to give them an active learning experience instead of a pre-bottled lecture, but I do. 

Norchene,

Serious games have been extensively used as educational tools in many institutions for quite some time. In our university we have used many games  in courses related to policy making, safety and security, logistics and transportation. We have a dedicated gamelab to produce training and educational games http://www.seriousgaming.tudelft.nl/

You can also check our publications on Research Gate. Game based learning is an active research topic and several journals publish on this topic. 

good luck,

Shaliini

There is a course for digital gamers running now on European Schoolnet Academy. Perhaps there you can find revelant info. The link is:

The link is: http://www.europeanschoolnetacademy.eu/web/guest/courses

In addition to the above mentioned issues I would like to add: Lack of suitable games.

We need shorter games that can tell a story/demonstrate a princinple in 20-30 minutes, not 3-30 hours. 

We need games that are translated into diffrent languages so that kids can play in their first language. 

We need games and/or worksheets for games that specifically adress local learning outcomes

Gaming the System - a New York practice-based game used by the pro bono legal community to show undocumented detained immigrant youth how to bridge the justice gap faced by them and to increase their engagement in the pursuit of justice (Lien Tran 2013).

Also, we reported the views of rural youth in Australia to a Serious Game developed in New Zealand  http://games.jmir.org/2014/1/e3/ 

Thank you Dana. & Guillaume, thank you too - I definitely think games are going to become evermore reactive to real-time measurements taken from players.

For my research I have decided to use the Game Experience Questionnaire, I am keen to hear from anyone with experience of using it. Many thanks to everyone for your input to date.

Hi Parvaneh

Actually the issue is one of the interesting and main key questions in scenario planning in "futures studies" and "foresight". But the question there was a little different. In this field the question is that: How can we make scenarios believable?  what ever the scenarios being believable the reactions that players done can be near to the real true reactions. 

The problem is that in safe and sound situations players may not show their real reactions and the efficiency of exercise definitely decreased.

So I believe that the panic is one of these reactions therefore in some cases implant panic may not possible or may not work. Because the level of panic in your players is actually different.

So I suggested that instead we could try to make the situation as believable as possible in some below ways with using Additional details and tools such as

- Designed equipment, technologies and special tools for the special scenarios or games

- Providing marginal information for each scenarios

- Effective story telling to make scenarios believable 

- Applying special Effects like movies

- Designed environment of actions

- Providing intervention through skillful players among the scenario

- Provide surprising and unexpected issues during game (secret arrangement with some players)

- Shocking start also can breaking ice and involved in other above mentioned tools

- etc.

I believe all of these tools or techniques trying to change the image and the sense of your players in their mind. It is obviously time consuming and costly and needs creativity and designing process. anyway I suggest to take a look at the book wrriten by Karl Weick, entitled "Making sense of the organization"  John Wiley & Sons, 2012. In this book in page 129 forward, you may find some concept about process of sense-making. It may not directly answer to your question but may build a mental framework to make a sense for your games and scenarios.

Best Regards,

Ardeshir Sayah

It's always hard to find studies that follow participants over a long period of time, because it's hard to run a study like this.

But only by logical thinking, one may conclude that it's hard to keep someone playing the same game over and over again, unless the game is capable of adding something new for the player over time. No one wants to do the same thing over and over game. Even with entertainment games, players usually play them for a time, after that they become bored and switch to another game. Unless the game is capable of adding new content over time.

For serious games, it is necessary to study what are the objectives of each specific game and consider if it's really desirable that the players keep playing the same game over time. For example, for learning games, specific games to teach specific knowledge would be better suited. After the student learned that piece of knowledge, they would eventually switch to other games to learn different things.

However, if you find a situation where keeping engagement with the same game over an extended period is necessary, employing extrinsic motivation, like external rewards, usually work for a brief period. The use of intrinsic motivation is necessary to keep engagement for a longer period. You can study about Self-Determination Theory to understand more about extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/).

You can find extensive information about games and intrinsic motivation on the book "Glued to Games: How Video Games Draw Us In and Hold Us Spellbound" by Scott Rigby and Richard Ryan. They talk about games in general, but it's easy to understand that the same principles can be applied specifically to serious games.

Yes I'm looking for message/intention intended by the designers, in multiplayer competititive.  And served by other ways than just narrative (embeded or emergent). Rules, system, signs, feedbacks, condition of failure or victory, camera behavior.... all type of means.  

Hi, Helen. At the Games For Change Fesitival in New York last week, there was more overlap between film and games than I'd seen before, ever. You might have a look at some of the videos from the event, as they are released, or ask some of the speakers what they know of.

While there, I saw a screening of  http://www.thankyouforplayingfilm.com/ a (beautifully made and compelling) documentary, based on the game "That Dragon, Cancer". The game itself is very much like a documentary film in its own right, in terms of its interactivity. (As a professional game developer, I'm not at all interested in the distinctions between "games" and "other interactive stuff'". Indeed, it's usually unhelpful to focus over this, even if it's good academic fun to do so.)

The filmmakers, with whom I chatted, are lovely folk. Ask them! (Via the website.)

An update on my progress for those of you who followed this questions because you deal with similar research:

Two programmers started to build the nautical traffic management control room simulator. We use Unity to build the simulation part, and separately build a front end which communicates with Unity. In a month time, among other things we were able to:

- build the waterway network with the use of existing ENC maps

- included path finding on a part of the network, where vessels automatically follow the most logical route

- include locks which we can put into maintenance to cause hinder

- developed the basics of the GUI for an object planner role and operational network management role and included communication between the two operator roles and the simulated vessels

- after the operator sends a notice to skippers, the vessels in the network adapt their route accordingly

At this moment, we include the ability to set or release traffic measures such as speed limits on a part of the waterway.

We concluded that the use of Unity indeed helps to rather quickly develop a traffic management simulator. Thank you all for your advice and good luck with you future work!

First, you should decide what UX aspect is important, e.g. utility, usability, aesthetics. A serious game should have a very good usability and stimulation, right? Then, the question is, when in the product life cycle UX assessment methods can be applied? If the product development is finished already, then you might use the classic techniques like heuristic evaluation, observation and eye tracking. Thinking aloud is sometimes difficult to apply during games (dynamics, real-time interaction etc.). Eye tracking is quite interesting in this context.

There is a very large number of definitions for Learning Objects, but they have 5 common elements: 1) Learning objective, 2) Contents, 3) Learning activities, 4) Assessment, 5) Metadata. So in this context, the first 4 elements can be design in any way, including many approaches. Even some reseracher could consider serious games as learning objects. So, are the other trends learning objects, not neccesarly.

And yes, it is feasible developing educational resources taking into account three aspects:

But this task is highly complex. Fourtunately, there is a researche, Antonio Silva Sprock, who has developed a methodology an a tool for achieving what you are looking for, the next link shows his work. I recommend you to read these two papers:

The second one is exactly what you need.

Ana, you might take a look at the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SERIOUS GAMES

http://journal.seriousgamessociety.org/index.php?journal=IJSG

as well as at the activities and publications of the EU-funded GaLA network of Excellence on serious games

http://www.galanoe.eu/

incl. the upcoming GaLA conference (http://www.galaconf.org/).

Stefan - I was just about to answer this and recommend Jonathan's work. You beat me to it :-)

Not sure if any of these will help.

"Video games in health care" (covers use in specific health e.g., diabetes, anxiety; as well as in training)

"Serious video games for health" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2919172/

"Educational Video Game Design: a review of the Literature" (2007)

"Exergames for Physical Education Courses: physical, social and cognitive benefits"

For some videos etc of health games you could try the "Games for Health Project" http://www.youtube.com/user/gfhproject

It is my understanding that epistemic games have a narrower definition than serious games. Epistemic games are specifically concerned with developing knowledge through game-play and particularly in developing epistemic "frames" (Shaffer), whereas the "serious" epithet relates to the broader use of games than purely for entertainment. Epistemic games are typically online simulations that encourage a particular way of thinking about a problem that is particularly relevant to the profession in question. For example, in teaching risk and accident investigation, I have used simulated accidents and risk assessments to encourage students to develop the investigative and analytical problem-solving skills they will need in their practice. Hope this helps!

Part of my doctoral reseach on NPCs and PCs are presented as game design patterns: Lankoski, 2010, Character-driven game design. https://www.taik.fi/kirjakauppa/images/4463b7dc09f925da01eaf73cbc72eed9.pdf

Patterns are in Appendix 2 (pages 61-74). More detailed analyses are presented on pages 116-155 & 162-181.

Staffan Björk has been extending some of these patterns in Gameplay design patterns 2.0 wiki http://gdp2.tii.se/index.php/Main_Page

Thank Gopal for your answer. I am agreed with you that games are mainly designed for fun. We have to differentiate funny game to serious game. Editor are now designing games to train employees or to share data. Learning by playing! Total, Renault, Michelin implemented successfull serious games which improve employees training and communication. Serious games are fully interactive and are well designed to capture users' attention.

What helped me a lot was: Leonard A. Anetta: The "I's" Have It: A Framework for Serious Educational Game Design, in: Review of General Psychology 2010, Vol. 14, No. 2, 105–112. The paper is concerned with very basic issues of serious game design and with the pedagogic strategies you may implement therein to advance learning. If need be, I can also provide the PDF, just ask.

I could answer u in a 100 ways. Sry. I am an open minded inter- and transdisciplinary thinker. Sometimes a bit crazy... So: That´s why i am asking you: "Which performance term do u wanna use?"

Just a few more sentences pls about: I just call it "Strategic steps 2 embed thoughts"

First: Call the paradigma, your view bout science and your view to handle the term and yourself by "doing science" (i.e. using the performance term mabye based on a action theory in an anthropological layout using a qualitative metric)

Second: Call the structural properties and "key terms - concepts" (constitutive properties) that contribute to the sciencific community, which shall be related 2 answer your question, the question of other researchers and the non-scientific community (Willimczik could help).. Sry i don´t like research without sense and / or use .

In other words "open the field of research maybe by asking yourself bout the interest of research". Try to triangulate your personal interests about the performance term and your usage of the term and let us know your thoughts and interests."

Or in a more simple way: Just loose a few more words about

2. Research field, Domain, Discipline, Field of Intervention, where to use the implications caused using the term in a systematic manner

3. and your Theoretical Apporach

4. The metrics will follow itself... :)

Sincerely Steve

Short Way:

Steve Funke - TU Chemnitz Germany

Sports- and (Media-)Education scientist, Ergonomics and Human Factors Research, Media Psychology, also Business Studies, Philosoph with Interests in SG Design, Workflow and I am a Player of Bad "Shooter Games" that are made by the US Army (Military SG Games hehe )

Themes:

Learning Performance, Movement / Action / Motor Performance, coordinative performance, "Performance as a term to desrcibe the effectiveness of agents and processes to provoke states" , Instructional Design Performance

Motor Tests, Learning Tests, Usability Tests

d(/^_^)b

One question: Do u use the term SG 4 a computer based digital game or in a more general matter without any technology. Maybe SG as utilized Game, where Learning without recognizing the normativ layer becomes indoctrination or Playing a game becomes work? Games as simulated realities and Playing as Mimesis?

Did u already scrutinise the idea of men that stays in background of using the performance term? Did u ever thought about Cognitive/ Mind Performance? Body Performance? Aesthetic Performance? Performance of Education based on SG - SG Design Approaches.... Producing SG´s and teaching how to think about SG and conduct reseach is, in a strategic way (Seen by the Education policy) it might be cheaper to invest in SG, then i traditionell education settings...

i.e. easier then to make a film, write a book or instruct kids in front of the classroom? Didactic invests and educational efforts.. "The Suitability of the Du Pont System to evaluate educational performance / performance of education management processes?" . "Instructions as Investigations into the human capital ressources / Enhancing abilities 2 work, 2 live, 2 play, 2 learn, 2 computate, 2 communicate etc..."

And which Performance do u want to Improve by utilizing games?

Improving Performance of Thinking, Moving, Acting (i.e. Playing a Role in a theater)?

Second question: What kind of usage do u prefer? Handling performance only as a process or only as a result?

Third question: If u were a teacher in school.. Would u grade or evaluate the performance?

Would any of the prosocial behavior assessments help? I looked into PsycTests and found the PCQ - Perceptions of Collaboration Questionnaire that assesses perceptions of the cognitive compensation and interpersonal enjoyment functions of collaboration among middle-aged and older married couples. There is the Smither, Robert & Houston Competitive Index....