A Model to Support Outside Classroom Learning
Boumediene Belkhouche
Heba Ismail
Fatmah Ramsi
College of Information Technology
United Arab Emirates University
Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
b.belkhouche@uaeu.ac.ae
College of Information Technology
United Arab Emirates University
Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
hebaismail20@gmail.com
College of Information Technology
United Arab Emirates University
Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
F.alramsi@gmail.com
Abstract—
We address software engineering issues related to modeling
game-based learning systems to support the kind of independent
learning that takes place outside the classroom. After evaluating
existing game-based learning (GBL) frameworks and identifying
GBL characteristics, we elaborate and express formally a set
of functional requirements that capture the many dimensions
of GBL systems. From these requirements, we propose a GBL
system structure that consists of an instructional subsystem, a
control subsystem,, and a game subsystem. We use this model as a
foundation to develop a fully operational GBL prototype intended
for children to learn about the concepts in many microworlds.
The game has a knowledge acquisition phase and a challenge
phase. In the learning phase, the learner interacts with various
objects and learn about their characteristics. In the challenge
phase, the player is presented with several challenges related to
objects he/she met. This phase is used implicitly to assess the
impact of the first phase on the learner. The positive results
of an experiment to assess the impact of this game on concept
acquisition are discussed.
Index Terms—game-based learning, requirements elicitation,
software model, independent learning.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Digital natives spend the majority of their time interacting
with devices ([1]–[4]). They play, communicate, collaborate,
and learn while connected. A substantial amount of their
knowledge is acquired through cyberspace exploration. This
form of knowledge acquisition is referred to as “cyberlearning”
[5]. Unlike the traditional educational environment, the cyberlearning context, molded by the ICT infrastructure, is in need
of new models of learning processes that integrate technologies
and learning sciences. Technology, specifically virtual reality
and smart devices, offers opportunities to support learning
activities outside the classroom. These devices have grafted
themselves into our bodies and our environment, thus making
us components of cyberspace and extending our affordances
([1]–[3], [6], [7]).
It is stipulated that cyberlearning supports constructivism by
affording learners independence, exploration, self-discovery,
and knowledge construction [8]. Game-based learning (GBL),
conceived as the integration of games and learning, is being
advocated as a major component of cyberlearning ([2], [4]).
GBL is one example of multimodal platforms that promotes
the concept of independent knowledge construction and skill
acquisition by involving various channels of learning that
increase comprehension and retention ([9], [10]). As confirmed
by statistics, the popularity and widespread use of video games
is undeniable [11]. This high popularity and the ensuing social
and economic impact have triggered video game studies in various domains, such as cultural, social, psychological, technical,
and educational. For years, the vast majority of research on the
effects of “gaming” was focused on its negative impact: the
potential harm related to violence, addiction, and depression
([12], [13]). However, the nature of these games has changed
drastically in the last decade, becoming increasingly complex,
diverse in purpose, realistic, and social in nature. Recent
studies suggest that playing action video games improves
working memory [14]. Other studies found that controlled
and balanced use of video games can bring opportunities for
developing meta-cognitive skills (i.e., the ability to think about
one’s own thinking), developing identity, and becoming social
([9], [15], [16]). In addition, many GBL researchers estimate
that games trigger learning ([17], [18]) and can be effective in
supporting learning activities in schools, and particularly, as a
component of the formal educational context ([6], [19]–[22]).
A large body of research experiments to assess the impact of
GBL demonstrates that the use of GBL results in higher effect
sizes compared to traditional education ([9], [20], [23]–[25]).
However, there remain multiple claims about GBL that
cannot be substantiated ([26], [27]). One aspect of the disagreement stems from the lack of balanced integration of
concepts from pedagogy, instruction, assessment, content, and
technology into an operational software model. Another aspect with GBL research is the diversity of concerned disciplines, which include the fields of education, psychology,
learning sciences, and computing. This fact reveals disparate
perspectives of GBL community on the nature and quality
of the intended learning. Due to this diversity and related
jargon, critical concepts (e.g., “design”) have no common
interpretation leading to fragmented integration efforts and
hybrid models that lack conceptual consistency and generality.
Even though the GBL community understanding is converging
towards common concepts and principles, from a Software
Engineering point of view, there have been no attempts at
explicitly elaborating design requirements for GBL systems.
Typical studies addressing GBL design describe abstractly
the notion of “game” requirements in the form of GBL
goals, features, and mechanics. Qualitatively, it is highlighted
by various researchers that there is a need for game-based
learning design frameworks that integrate learning outcomes
into games without compromising fun and engagement. Proposed GBL frameworks are described in highly conceptual
terms that do not provide any guidance for software design
and implementation. For example, the concept of learning
remains undefined, and even though we have an intuitive idea
about it, we still need an operational definition to guide its
software implementation ([28]–[32]). Given that GBL systems
are first and foremost software systems, not applying Software
Engineering processes to address GBL development systems
constitutes a serious flaw in modeling these systems.
Hence, we investigate software development issues associated with GBL systems. Our approach involves: (1) analysis
of some established GBL design frameworks; (2) elaboration
from these conceptual designs of a set of software requirements and a software model that capture the functionality of
GBL systems; and (3) implementation and assessment of a
prototype to demonstrate the feasibility of our approach. The
proposed model is intended to foster common understanding
of GBL systems and to serve as a sound template for design
and implementation.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In Section II
we overview criteria and attributes of what is deemed a “good
educational game”. In Section III we summarize proposed
game design recommendations. In Section IV we capture the
GBL model as a system consisting of three major subsystems:
instruction, game, and control. In Section V, we elicit requirements and use SysML [33] to express these requirements. and
In Section VI, we describe a prototype implementation based
on our model. In Section VII, we describe an experiment
designed to assess the impact of using the prototype and
analyze the results. Finally, in Section VIII, we summarize
the contributions of our research.
II. GBL E FFECTIVENESS C RITERIA
Various researchers investigated criteria and attributes of
good educational games. For example, Gee [34] analyzed
existing games trying to find out whether they achieve the
requirements of deep learning. He defined six key properties for good digital games to promote deep learning: (1)
an underlying rule system and goal to which the player is
emotionally attached; (2) micro-control that creates a sense
of intimacy or a feeling of power (i.e. using an avatar or
giving the player control over some elements of the game); (3)
experiences that offer good learning opportunities in familiar
game worlds; (4) a match between affordance (i.e., features
in the game worlds that allow for some actions to be taken)
and effectiveness (i.e. the ability of a player to carry out such
an action), (5) modeling to make learning from experience
more general and abstract, and (6) encouragement to players
to enact their own unique trajectory through the game. Shute
[35] synthesized GBL effectiveness criteria in the literature
and proposed seven core elements of well-designed learning
games: (1) Interactive problem solving: games require ongoing
interaction between the player and the game, which usually
involves the requirement to solve a series of problems or
quests; (2) Specific goals / rules: games have rules to follow
and goals to attain which help the player focus on what to
do and when. Goals in games may be implicit or explicit;
(3) Adaptive challenges: good games balance difficulty levels
to match players’ abilities. The best games and instruction
hover at the boundary of a student’s ability; (4) Control: a
good game Shall allow or encourage a player’s influence over
gameplay, the game environment, and the learning experience;
(5) ongoing feedback: good games shall provide timely information to players about their performance. Feedback can be
explicit or implicit, and as research has indicated, has positive
effects on learning; (6) Uncertainty evokes suspense and player
engagement. If a game “telegraphs” its outcome, or can be
seen as predictable, it will lose its appeal; (7) Sensory stimuli
refer to the combination of graphics, sounds, and/or storyline
used to excite the senses, which do not require “professional”
graphics or sound to be compelling. Dondlinger [36] reviewed
literature in GBL addressing the question “How video games
can be designed to facilitate learning?” In her review she
identified characteristics of effective game design that promote
learning. She highlighted that games shall include: (1) a
system of rewards and goals which motivate players; (2) a
narrative context which situates activity and establishes rules
of engagement; (3) learning content that is relevant to the
narrative plot, and (4) interactive cues that prompt learning
and provide feedback.
A common core can be derived from the properties and characteristics of effective GBL design identified in the literature.
There is an emphasis on the importance of interactive systems
that promote learning and feedback creating suitable learning
experiences, well-defined goals and rules, suitable levels of
challenge that increase engagement and user control. On the
other hand, Gee alone emphasizes the importance of modeling
learning experience so as to make learning more general and
abstract, whereas Ke attributes the user engagement to the
fantasy and uncertainty of the game in addition to the suitable
challenge level.
III. GBL D ESIGN R ECOMMENDATIONS
Considering empirical studies assessing the effectiveness
of GBL, Hakan et al. [37] assessed the effects of the game
on primary students’ achievement and motivation in learning
geography. They found that exploration, interaction, collaboration, and immersion in computer games may provide rich
opportunities for geography learning. Further they highlighted
the importance of giving the learner an active role engaging
with domain-related information while designing learning environment (e.g. avatar). Ebner and Holzinger [19] assessed
whether and to what extent online games have the potential
to contribute to student’s learning in higher education and
found that a high level of motivation is often a prerequisite
for success in GBL. They suggested that high score lists and
content of the game shall be motivating factors. Furthermore,
they highlighted that incidental learning occurs when it is
unexpected and hence players immerse in the game because
they do not realize they are playing. This in turn results
in a better learning experience. Finally they emphasized the
importance of designing suitable levels of challenge that are
gradual so as to increase user engagement. Ke assessed the
effectiveness of GBL in teaching math for 4th-5th grade
students during a summer camp and proposed some GBL
design recommendations that contribute to the effectiveness
of GBL such as (1) conceal learning in the game environment
by using authentic learning activities associated with a virtual
identity or character, (2) select game difficulty level appropriate to learner level and background, (3) elaborate a design
that allows reflection and analysis through ratio reward, where
players dedicate sufficient time for every stage and by utilizing
elaborate feedback to give the player the chance to evaluate
performance and adjust accordingly [20].
Several researchers attempted to model the design of GBL
governing the design of the learning experience, in order to
facilitate good educational game development. For example,
Kiili’s [28] proposed the Experiential Model that supports
reflective thinking and construction of new knowledge in
game-based learning through the application of flow theory. van Staalduinen [29] proposed the Game-Based-Learning
Framework that integrates game elements with instructional
and educational theories in order to have a comprehensive
framework supporting the design and analysis of effective educational games. Arnab et al. [31] proposed the GM-LM model
that maps learning mechanics to game mechanics. Therefore,
learning mechanics that reflects different learning goals and
instructions are mapped to game mechanics composed of game
components and goals. Carlvalho et al. [32] proposed the
Activity Theory-Based Model for Serious Games in which
game design is linked to the player sequence of activity
providing more concrete understanding of educational games
design.
The design recommendations are fairly similar, mainly focusing on interactive learning experience in authentic learning
environments, adaptive challenge and user-control, and are
consistent with the above effectiveness criteria. The proposed
design models share common elements, such as: goals, rules,
learning experience (i.e, composed of goals, actions, feedback,
application and debriefing), and challenge. Furthermore, by
analyzing the underlying assumptions of these GBL design
models we found that they are developed based on subset
or all of the GBL effectiveness criteria defined in section
II. This emphasizes the assumption that we made earlier
that effective GBL systems share a common set of generic
functional requirements.
IV. GBL AS A S YSTEM
Given the diverse components of GBL, it is fairly reasonable
to analyze GBL from a system viewpoint. We analyzed four
abstract GBL frameworks ([28]–[32]). Based on this analysis
and the GBL recommendations and design effectiveness (sections II and III), we synthesized the structure of a GBL system
(Fig. 1) and elaborated a set of GBL system requirements to
establish a set of overall objectives that the system shall meet.
We grouped system requirements into three major subsystems, where each group includes a set of related requirements
Fig. 1. GBL System Structure
that can be individually or collectively met by a subsystem.
GBL system requirements are thus partitioned into the following groups:
Instructional Requirements. Learning objectives must
be explicitly captured in educational ones. They must
guide the design by providing an initial framework within
which the game is played. The learning objectives also
provide a set of underlying assumptions that cannot be
violated. They direct the selection of the learning content, the learning activities and the educational approach
followed in the GBL. This requirement suggests an Instructional Subsystem composed of the learning content,
learning outcomes, educational approach, and assessment
rules.
• Control requirements. The game shall implement a
control logic that is aligned with the game rules and
satisfies the learning objectives. The control logic as the
name implies control all aspects of software components
such as data organization and representation, interaction
logic and object implementation. This requirement suggests a Control Subsystem: consisting of interaction logic
controlling the implementation of the learning activities,
educational approach, challenge, and assessment rules as
well as controlling the organization and presentation of
learning content.
• Game Requirements. GBL system should implement
specific rules directing the game flow, mechanics, scoring
and some user controls in alignment with the game goal.
The game rules are built on top of specific game story.
This requirement suggests a Game Subsystem: composed
of story (i.e. game logic), game mechanics, physics, and
game data.
•
TABLE I
S UMMARY OF GBL S YSTEM R EQUIREMENTS
User
Requirements
Specific goals
Specific Rules
User Micro
Control
Learning
Experience
Adaptive
Change
Generic GBL System Requirements
A GBL system shall:
1. implement and display specific
learning content in different forms to
support predefined learning outcomes.
A GBL system shall:
2. implement specific rules directing
the game flow, interactions, and scoring
in alignment with the game goal.
A GBL system shall enable
the player to:
3. choose an “Avatar”.
4. customize the “Avatar”.
5. choose amongst available
quests and adventures.
6. change game options.
7. exit the game.
A GBL system shall enable
the player to:
8. explore the game environment.
9. view instructions in the form of
artifacts, hints, tips or messages.
10. inquire for information.
11. get feedback.
12. interact within the game context
with game characters and objects.
13. make decisions.
14. choose from alternatives.
15. modify/correct action.
16. replay a quest.
A GBL system shall:
17. assess the player progress based
on predefined rules.
18. calculate the score.
19. display the score.
20. update player’s win/lose status
based according to predefined rules.
21. adapt difficulty level to player’s
progress based on predefined rules.
This conceptual view is captured in a SysML [33] toplevel package shown in Fig. 1. The GBL model is represented
as a hierarchy where the parent is the GBL system and
its descendants are the three components, consisting of the
instructional, game, control subsystems. The dotted arrows
represent the dependencies among components and the crosshair symbol represents containment.
As stated in the previous sections, there are some common
effectiveness criteria of GBL that were emphasized by the
empirical studies and further modeled in the GBL design
frameworks. We will use these common criteria as basis to
construct a generic set of GBL system requirements that are
considered essential for any effective GBL system. The GBL
system shall (see summary in Table I): (1) Implement specific goals: by implementing specific learning content aligned
with predefined learning outcomes; (2) Implement specific
rules: implementing rules directing the game flow, interactions,
scoring in alignment with the game goal; (3) Allow users
to micro-control elements in the game: by enabling the user
to have control over some actions, movements in the game
Fig. 2. Package for Top-level Requirements
environment through means of implementing an avatar with associated privileges and controls such as: changing the options
of the game, selecting levels, choosing features, deleting some
features or undoing some actions, etc.; (4) Implement suitable
learning experience: by implementing number of interactions
that normally include collecting requirements, solving puzzles
or overcoming challenges and quests in a familiar game environment that put the user in an experiential learning experience
where he/she can explore, reflect, understand concepts, get
feedback, apply knowledge, make decisions, discuss and debrief; and (5) Implement adaptive challenge: by implementing
suitable difficulty levels that match the players skill level.
V. R EQUIREMENTS D ECOMPOSITION
The analysis of the top-level requirements shows that the
user micro-control, the learning experience, and the adaptive
challenge requirements are controlled by game rules which
must be aligned with game specific goals.
Again, we use the SysML package structure to express
the dependencies among the requirements. In the package
diagram, each package captures a specification and the overall
package structure corresponds to a typical specification tree
that is a useful artifact for describing the scope of requirements
for a project. Fig. 2 shows the relationships among the toplevel requirements as a package tree specification. The two
major relationships represented here are containment (crosshair symbol) and dependency (dotted arrow line).
Each component is further refined in a requirement diagram
as shown in figures 3–5. Such a diagram is used to identify
a given requirement and to express its various relationships.
This explicit modeling provides support for traceability and
other types of analysis. Fig. 3 illustrates the decomposition
of the user micro-control. This decomposition shows a main
Fig. 3. User Micro-Control Requirements Decomposition
requirement thats consists of four sub-requirements and one
requirement that derives from another. Each requirement is
labeled with an identifier, its text, and a unique identification.
Fig. 4 illustrates the decomposition of the learning experience
and Fig. 5 illustrates the decomposition of the challenge
requirements. Based on these requirements a use-case model
for the player actor is defined as shown in Fig. 6.
to the player. Fig. 7 illustrates exploration paths that take the
player from one environment to another. The structure of the
environment is such that navigating it from one scene (picture
in the figure) to another exposes new concepts that lead to
the acquisition of new knowledge by allowing the player to
associate concepts with objects in the actual world.
VI. GBL P ROTOTYPE
This subsystem supports activities to promote learning.
Building the instructional model requires addressing the following questions:
• What is the kind of knowledge to be captured?
• How is the learning content (source of knowledge) organized?
• How is the learner going to discover this knowledge?
• How large is the space of choices given to the learner in
order to support a flexible and diverse exploration paths?
• How are the scenes (representing familiar environments)
synthesized?
• What are possible actions the main character (learner’s
avatar) is capable of performing?
1) Knowledge Selection and Organization: Similarly to
traditional education, the knowledge to be acquired drives the
selection of what is to be learned and forms the basis for
the learning content. Typically, a set of outcomes is defined
and themes and topics are outlined to cover these outcomes.
This section presents a concrete model (i.e., a game) of
game-based learning that is a refinement of the game design
described earlier. It is an adventure game intended for young
children, where the player explores a universe made of small
environments (microworlds representing familiar and authentic places, such as home, school, hospital, farm, etc.). The
learning strategy of the exploration is to acquire vocabulary
in a multimodal representation (word, pronunciation, picture,
meaning). When the player starts the game, he/she performs
actions to move in the environment and interact with objects.
An interaction between the player and an object triggers a
response from the object to expose its attributes.
During exploration, the player is given a wide range of
choices and paths to construct his/her knowledge. Such a
capability is achieved through interactions and a variety of
decision-making points provided by the environment. The usecase model shown in Fig. 6 summarizes the actions available
A. Instructional Subsystem
Fig. 4. Learning Experience Requirements Decomposition
Resources, such as books, are identified and lectures are developed and delivered. The GBL context is radically different.
Even though it must achieve the same learning outcomes, it
must not just mimic the traditional delivery. Assuming that the
learning content is captured in the traditional resources used
in the classroom, this learning content has to be remodeled by
carrying out the following steps:
1) Concept selection: in GBL, knowledge must revolve
around concepts, not data and information as found in
textbooks. Thus, defining a consistent set of concepts
to cover the outcomes is not only fundamental, but an
arduous task. The tasks of this stage are carried manually
before the design of the GBL prototype by curriculum
developers and dictated by learning outcomes.
2) Concept organization: the sequential structure of textbooks dictates a linear coverage. GBL supports explo-
ration of concepts through various paths. This capability
requires a network structure wherein the nodes are
concept clusters. Concept clustering and ordering are
two major relations required to organize the network
structure. Clusters capture relevance and commonalities
among concepts, whereas ordering captures the zone
of proximal development (Vygotsky’s ZPD [38]) and
concept inclusion (notion of concept-subconcept). We
use concept maps to organize the learning content [39].
3) Graphical environment synthesis: From the concept
maps of the universe (Fig. 8), the microworlds and their
objects, graphical renderings are generated (Fig. 9) to
serve as scenes in the game.
These steps result in modeling familiar environments to
provide a concrete representation of the learning content and
create contexts directly related to individual experiences. The
Fig. 5. Challenge Requirements Decomposition
Fig. 7. Exploration Scenario
Fig. 6. Use-case Model
choice of a familiar world is guided by perceptions children
have about their own world. Not only is this world conceptrich, but it also immersive in the sense that the child fancies
inhabiting it. Fig. 8 illustrates the structure of the universe in
which the child lives. Fig. 9 exhibits the synthesized graphical
representation of the structure of the microworld “Chicken
place” (a component of “My farm”), which is derived from a
concept map similar to the map shown in Fig. 8. Furthermore,
this microworld consists of several objects, two of which (egg
basket and chicken) are highlighted in a box. As shown in
Fig. 10, each object has a multimodal representation capturing
its various attributes. Multimodality was shown to enhance
retention and recollection [10].
2) Exploration and Knowledge Acquisition: An effective
implementation of the learning process may not be feasible.
Therefore, simpler activities to engage the player into learning
have been identified. For example, some of these activities are:
1) Exploration: this activity allows the player to move
around from one scene to another and from one object
to another.
Fig. 8. Child’s Universe
Fig. 9. Familiar Environment
2) Visual differentiation: to acquire knowledge that allows
Fig. 10. Multimodal Object Representation
discriminating between objects based on their attributes.
For example, initially recognizing the difference between a cow and a hen. Subsequently, recognizing the
difference between a hen and a rooster. A gradual
increase of the level of difficulty will result in harder
challenges and thus more discriminated knowledge.
3) Attributes-instance association: each instance (e.g., object) possesses several attributes, such as size, sound,
color, usage that the learner is exposed to.
4) Word-instance association: each instance has a name.
This association allows the learner to recognize objects
by name.
5) Assessment of these activities: this activity allows the
system to assess the progress of the learner.
B. Control Subsystem
The control subsystem supports interaction activities (gameplay). such as:
Player actions: as defined in the use-case model (Fig.6),
externally, the player performs actions to affect the behavior of the avatar. Internally, the control subsystem reflects
these actions by altering the state of the avatar, resulting
game progression.
• Interaction matrix: to interact, an object (including the
avatar) is endowed with scripted behavior to allow it to
respond to events. Mutual participation in events results
in interactions among objects and the player. This set
of interactions is represented in an interaction matrix.
Objects respond to events by performing a set of specific
actions. When an event is triggered, the control system
executes the behavior specifications associated with the
objects participating in this event.
• Challenges: challenges are a special kind of events that
involves reaching goals, obtaining rewards, and increasing scores. Based on the outcome of the event, the control
system updates the rewards and scores.
•
Fig. 11. Color Match Challenge Scene
C. Game Subsystem
The game subsystem is the core of the game engine that
performs the typical operations of commercial games engines
(e.g., Unity, Unreal, GameMaker). The game engine is basically the execution platform that supports graphical rendering
and animation, physics, sound, and script execution.
VII. E VALUATION A PPROACH
To demonstrate the feasibility of our model, we developed a
fully operational prototype that we tested on school children. It
is a game intended for children to learn about concepts found
in various familiar environments. The game has a knowledge
acquisition phase and a challenge phase. In the learning phase,
the learner interacts with various objects (e.g., animals in
the farm environment) and learn about their characteristics.
In the challenge phase, the player is presented with several
challenges related to objects he/she met. This phase is used
implicitly to assess the impact of the first phase on the learner.
We conducted a small experiment at local Kindergarten.
We selected 100 3-4 year-old children in KG1 (50 girls
and 50 boy) with similar background. We asked them some
questions when we selected them to assess their knowledge
of the concepts we introduced in our model. We gave each
pupil a tablet to play the game. Using interviews, we tested
successively 10 children at a time and recorded their responses.
A sample challenge question to identify and match the color
of the cow is shown in Fig. 11.
The analysis of their responses is summarized in Fig. 12.
The results show that: (1) 80% of them remember what they
discovered inside the game; (2) 76% understand the game
without any help; (3) 82% followed the instructions on how
to use the game; (4) 87% enjoyed playing the game; and (5)
85% were able to interact with the game with ease.
VIII. C ONCLUSION
Our analysis of GBL research highlighted the convergence
towards a common core of concepts related to GBL design frameworks, effectiveness criteria and design recommendations. Based on this analysis we elaborated a GBL
Fig. 12. Summary of Experiment Results
system model consisting of three subsystems. The common
core served as a basis for developing a set GBL system
requirements. By way of illustration, we used SysML to
capture the GBL system structure, the organization of the
top-level requirements, and the decomposition of the microcontrol, challenge and learning experience requirements. We
also showed a sample of use case model for the player. The
proposed requirements can be used as guideline for developing
effective GBL systems and help in reducing development time
and effort.
As a feasibility study to show how our requirement model
can form the basis for implementing into actual game, we
developed and adventure game to provide children with a
platform to acquire vocabulary. We identified three requirement subsystems, each of which was mapped into a corresponding implementation subsystem. As part of this mapping,
we described the functionality of each subsystem. Finally, we
discussed an experiment we conducted at a KG school to
evaluate the impact of using our game to learn vocabulary.
Results show that the pupils’ performance was
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Lenhart and et al., “Teens, video games, and civics,” Pew Internet &
American Life Project, Tech. Rep., 2008.
[2] J. Anderson and L. Rainie, “Gamification: Experts expect ‘game layers’
to expand in the future, with positive and negative results,” Pew Internet
& American Life Project, Washington, D.C. 20036, Tech. Rep., 2012.
[3] K. Salen, The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and
Learning.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008, ch. Toward an
Ecology of Gaming, pp. 1–20.
[4] J. Kirriemuir and C. McFarlane, “Literature review in games and
learning,” Future Lab Series Report 8, 2006.
[5] NSF Task Force on Cyberlearning, Fostering Learning in the Networked
World: The Cyberlearning Opportunity and Challenge. Washington,
D.C.: National Science Foundation, 2008.
[6] J. Kirriemuir, “Literature review in games and learning,” Nesta Futurelab, nesta Futurelab Report 2004.
[7] B. Wellman, A. Quan-Haase, J. Boase, W. Chen, K. Hampton, I. Dı́az,
and K. Miyata, “The social affordances of the internet for networked
individualism,” Journal of computer-mediated communication, vol. 8,
no. 3, p. JCMC834, 2003.
[8] G.-J. Hwang, “Definition, framework and research issues of smart
learning environments-a context-aware ubiquitous learning perspective,”
Smart Learning Environments, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 4, 2014.
[9] R. E. Mayer, Computer games for learning: An evidence-based approach. MIT Press, 2014.
[10] A. Paivio, “Mental imagery in associative learning and memory,” Psychological Review, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 241–263, 1969.
[11] A. Hope, “Next gen. transforming the UK into the world’s leading talent
hub for the video games and visual effects industries,” Nesta Report,
2011.
[12] C. L. Groves and C. A. Anderson, “Video game violence and offline
aggression,” in Mental Health in the Digital Age: Grave Dangers, Great
Promise. Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 86–105.
[13] S. Prot, C. A. Anderson, D. A. Gentile, S. C. Brown, and E. L. Swing,
“The positive and negative effects of video game play,” in Media and
the Well-Being of Children and Adolescents. Oxford University Press,
2014, pp. 109–128.
[14] K. Blacker, “Effects of action video game training on visual working
memory,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: human Perception and
Performance, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1992–2004, 2014.
[15] I. Granic, A. Lobel, , and R. C. M. E. Engels, “The benefits of playing
video games,” American Psychologist, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 67–78, 2014.
[16] P. Wouters, C. Van Nimwegen, H. Van Oostendorp, and E. D. Van
Der Spek, “A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects
of serious games.” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 105, no. 2,
p. 249, 2013.
[17] J. Gee, What Video Games Have to teach us about learning. New
York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.
[18] M. Prensky, Digital Game-Based Learning. St Paul: Paragon House,
2007.
[19] M. Ebner and A. Holzinger, “Successful implementation of user-centered
game based learning in higher education: An example from civil
engineering,” Computers & Education, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 873–890,
November 2007.
[20] F. Ke, “A case study of computer gaming for math: Engaged learner
from gameplay,” Computers & Education, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1609–
1620, December 2008.
[21] K. Squire, “Changing the game : What happens when video games enter
the class room?” Journal of Online Education, vol. 1, no. 6, p. 8, 2005.
[22] H. Tuzun, M. Yilmaz-Soylua, T. Karakusb, Y. Inalb, and G. Kizilkaya,
“The effects of computer games on primary school students’ achievement and motivation in geography learning,” Computers & Education,
vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 68–77, January 2009.
[23] T. Sitzmann, “A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games,” Personel Psychology,
vol. 64, pp. 489–528, 2011.
[24] P. Wouters and H. van Oostendorp, “A meta-analytic examination of
the role of instructional support in game-based learning,” Computers &
Education, vol. 60, pp. 412–425, 2013.
[25] P. Wouters, C. van Nimwegen, H. van Oostendorp, and E. van der Spek,
“A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious
games,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 105, no. 2, p. 249,
2013.
[26] A. Foster and P. Mishra, “Games, claims, genres, and learning,” Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education, vol. 1, pp.
33–50, 2009.
[27] T. M. Connolly, E. A. Boyle, E. MacArthur, T. Hainey, and
J. M. Boyle, “A systematic literature review of empirical evidence
on computer games and serious games,” Computers & Education,
vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 661 – 686, 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131512000619
[28] K. Kiili, “On educational game design, building blocks of flow experience,” http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tty-200810021043, Tampere University
of Technology, tampere University of Technology, Dissertation 2005.
[29] J.-P. V. Staalduinen and S. de Freitas, “A game-based learning framework: Linking game design and learning,” Learning to play: exploring
the future of education with video games, vol. 53, p. 29, 2011.
[30] A. Amory, “Game object model version ii: a theoretical framework for
educational game development,” Educational Technology Research and
Development, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 51–77, 2007.
[31] S. Arnab, T. Lim, M. B. Carvalho, F. Bellotti, S. de Freitas, S. Louchart,
N. Suttie, R. Berta, and A. D. Gloria, “Mapping learning and game
mechanics for serious games analysis,” British Journal of Educational
Technology, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 391–411, June 2015.
[32] M. B. Carvalho, F. Bellotti, R. Berta, A. D. 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, pp. 166–181, September 2015.
[33] OMG,
“Systems
modeling
language
(sysml),
v1.3,”
http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/12-06-02, accessed September
19, 2015.
[34] J. Gee, “Deep learning properties of good digital games: How far can
they go?” in Serious games: Mechanisms and effects. Routledge New
York, 2009, pp. 67–82.
[35] V. Shute and F. Ke, “Games, learning, and assessment,” in Assessment
in Game-Based Learning: Foundations, Innovations, and Perspectives.
Springer Science+Business Media New York, 2012, pp. 43–58.
[36] M. Dondlinger, “Educational video game design: A review of the
literature,” Journal of Applied Educational Technology, vol. 4, no. 1,
pp. 21–31, 2007.
[37] H. Tuzun, M. Yilmaz-Soylu, T. Karakus, Y. Inal, and G. Kizilkaya, “The
effects of computer games on primary school students’ achievement and
motivation in geography learning,” Computers & Education, vol. 52,
no. 1, pp. 68–77, 2009.
[38] L. Vygotsky and M. Cole, Mind in Society. Harvard University Press,
1978.
[39] J. D. Novak and A. J. Cañas, “The theory underlying concept maps and
how to construct and use them,” 2008.