Serious Games and Formal and Informal Learning


Published on

Author(s): Aristidis Protopsaltis, sonia Hetzner, Dimitra Pappa, Lucia Pannese.
Serious Games and Formal and Informal Learning

The experience garnered from the eVITA project is used to explore the relation between Serious Games (SGs) and formal and informal learning.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Serious Games and Formal and Informal Learning

  1. 1. From the field Serious Games and Formal and Informal LearningAuthors The experience garnered from the eVITA project is used to explore the relation between Serious Games (SGs) and formal and informal learning. The eVITA project promotes andAristidis Protopsaltis investigates pedagogy-driven innovation by defining and evaluating four different ped-Serious Games Institute agogical approaches. In addition, it aims to facilitate knowledge-transfer mechanisms(UK) that integrate Game Based Learning with intergenerational learning concepts. the project framework, a set of games have been developed which aim to increase European cultural awareness by conveying the cross-border experiences of older Eu-Lucia Pannese ropeans, and the first part of the expert evaluation of the outcomes is presented here.Imaginary srl – InnovationNetwork Politecnico diMilano (It) 1. IntroductionDimitra Pappa The use of traditional games in education has a long standing tradition. Games always usedNational Center for Scientific to be part of the human learning experience either in formal or in informal settings. Nowa-Research “Demokritos” (Gr) days, Serious Games (SGs) have become both a growing market in the video games (Alvarez & Michaud, 2008; Susi, Johanesson & Backlund, 2007) and a field of academic re- search (Ritterfeld, Cody & Vorderer, 2009) receiving attention from many diverse fields suchSonia Hetzner as psychology, cultural studies, computer science, business studies, sociology and pedagogySenior researcher, Friedrich- (Breuer & Bente, 2010).Alexander-UniversitätErlangen-Nürnberg (De) The fact that people learn from digital games is no longer in dispute. Research (de Freitas,sonia.hetzner@fim.uni- 2006; de Freitas & Neumann, 2009; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Prensky, 2006; Squire, 2004; Squire & Jenkins, 2003) has shown that serious games can be a very effective as an instruc- tional tool and it can assist learning by providing an alternative way of presenting instructions and content. Game based learning and serious games can promote student motivation andTags interest in subject matter, enhancing thus the effectiveness of learning. Learning throughserious games, case games offers increased motivation and interest to learners through the role of “fun” in learn-studies, informal learning, ing. Adding fun into the learning process makes learning not only more enjoyable and com-evaluation pelling, but more effective as well (Prensky, 2002, p. 4). One of the main characteristics of a serious game is the fact that the instructional content is presented together with fun ele- ments. A game that is motivating makes learners to become personally involved with playing it in an emotional and cognitive way. By engaging in a dual level, their attention and motiva- tion is increased and that assists their learning. There is credible research that suggests that today’s students have a different learning style, enabled by gaming. Beck and Wade (2004) in their work examined a large number of young professionals and found that their approach to learning was deliberately overlooking the structure and format of formal education. They were extensively used trial and error, they were welcoming contribution and instruction from peers, and they were emphasising on ‘just in time’ learning to fulfil their needs and complete their tasks. All of these skills are considered essential in the modern world and serious games can assist towards developing and practicing them. ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eueL ers 25 u ers.e gpap .elea rnin n.º 25 • July 2011Pap www 1
  2. 2. From the field2. Serious Games in Education open-ended nor wholly directed but a hybrid of the two some- thing Squire (2006, p. 53) have called “designed experiences”.Serious Games are perceived as games that engage users inactivities other than pure entertainment. They involve goal To assess this kind of “fluency,” Squire (2006) suggests the use oforientated tasks based either in real world or non-real world assessments that judge how well or not students identify prob-scenarios and aim to improve the player’s motor and cognitive lems within a domain; how well they can assess solutions; whatskills. Most often they are used for corporate training, educa- kinds of conceptual understandings they develop; and how theytion, problem solving, military training, health care, government communicate either verbally, written, visually, and “computa-management, disaster management. Serious games are slowly tionally” (Squire, 2006). Furthermore, serious games can pro-becoming a powerful tool in education (Torrente, Moreno-Ger, vide feedback in multiple formats the such as charts, graphs,Fernández-Manjón & del Blanco, 2009). written, multimedia, synchronous and asynchronous peer feed- back and assessments, and so on, that might be leveraged toWhilst Serious Games (SGs) are increasingly becoming accepted support learning in diverse settings. As such, games themselvesas a learning tool, the debate continues about what makes a may be much better forms of assessment than traditional meth-game effective and how it should be used. Making “intellectual- ods in both formal and informal settings (Squire, 2006).ly appropriate, challenging and enriching” games is considereda key research challenge together with the integration of SGs Serious Games offer learning experiences that engage usersinto the learning process (de Freitas, 2006). and, through the use of novel pedagogic approaches assists in developing higher levels of cognitive thinking. Serious GamesSerious Games offer a range of benefits such as making users can also incorporate data tracking to support assessment tofeel responsible for success according to their actions, match high levels of detail and provide tools for self-assessment andhigh-quality content and high engagement, turn mistakes into analysis. Playing Serious Games, information and sensations ex-learning elements avoiding the message that an error is some- perienced remain strongly impress and let the player improvething that cannot be recovered, allow problem based learning, perception, attention and memory, promoting behavior chang-situated learning and make users feel more comfortable with es through “learning by doing”. Serious Games allow situatedthe exercise etc. SGs offer the ability to participants to assume learning and make users feel more comfortable with the exer-an active role in a situated and experiential learning process. cise. In fact, internalize something you actively did is more sim-For example, Squire (2007) referring to his personal experience ple than learning during traditional frontal lessons, a so calleddescribes fifth-grade kids interacting as equals with computer “passive learning”. Serious Games are useful in the learning be-programmers from the Netherlands, improving their spelling cause they represent a new way to learn exploiting the synergythrough this interaction, and before long they were scripting between emotions and learning (Pappa et al., In Press).their own sections of the game-participating in the design of anew world. Furthermore, it is common practice nowadays for Despite the widespread use of commercial games and the in-millions of children to learning history first informally through creased attention that the domain of games-based learning hasgames and then formally through books and educational mate- received, strategies for supporting the more efficacious meth-rial. ods of learning with games were uncertain until very recently. In a study undertaken by de Freitas and Oliver (2006), tutorsIt is also widely accepted that educational games can increase were unsure which games to use, which context to use gamesthe attractiveness of learning, giving a powerful tool in the effort and how they could be evaluated and validated. This work ledagainst de-motivation and dropouts, two issues largely affecting to the development of conceptual frameworks that were subse-academic performance and formal and informal learning in gen- quently used for testing game-based learning. In particular theeral. Moreover, Serious Games can help to connect specific con- four dimensional framework proposed by de Freitas and Oliver,tents and skills with a friendly environment, where the student (2005) with its four dimensions of the learner, pedagogies used,is able to play, probe, make mistakes, and learn (Gee, 2003; Van the representation of the game itself and the context, allowedEck, 2006, 2007). More precisely, games employ strategies, such researchers to evaluate serious games and to interrogate whatas differentiated roles, visualization of performance and just-in- metrics and measures could be used both to validate game-time feedback, to guide learning in ways that are neither wholly based learning, and to support the learning design process. The ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • eL ers 25 u ers.e gpap .elea rnin n.º 25 • July 2011 Pap www 2
  3. 3. From the fieldeVITA approach was based on the four dimensional framework this case in the context of intergenerational learning and in for-and it produced four different serious games, based on four dif- mal and informal learning.ferent pedagogical approaches.Most of what happens with technology outside the classroom 3. Formal and non-formal learningwas and still is according to Squire (Squire, 2007) ignored. He In the past diverse attempts were made to define formal, non-(Squire, 2007) advocates that there is a need for mixed ap- formal and informal learning as well as to provide main indi-proaches that combine instruction with well-designed feedback cators for their occurrence. The CEDEFOP glossary (Tissot, P.,and scaffolding activities. More precisely, there is a need for 2000; Tissot, P., 2004) after intensive literature review in Europeincorporating formative assessment practices into formal and defines as follows: formal learning consists of learning that oc-maybe into informal learning. For doing so, it is necessary to curs within an organised and structured context (formal edu-change classroom traditional activities and interactions among cation, in-company training), and that is designed as learning,students and teachers (Bell & Cowie, 2001), to change the tra- formal learning may lead to formal recognition (certification).ditional communication, and to give students more independ- Non-formal learning consists of learning embedded in plannedence, activity and intentionality in their learning that go beyond activities that are not explicitly designated as learning, buttraditional intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Bereiter & Scar- which contain an important learning element. Informal learningdamalia, 1989; Scardamalia, 2002). is defined as learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family, or leisure. It is often referred to as experien-Serious games can be used as additional option to classroom tial learning and can, to a degree, be understood as accidentallecturing. The intention of serious games is to address new ways learning.of ICT based instructional design and at the same time to pro-vide learners the possibility to acquire skills and competencies. According to these definitions we could place Serious GamesBy means of serious games learners/players should be able to learning activities as non-formal learning activities. Althoughapply factual knowledge, learn on demand, gain experiences in they are explicitly designed for learning, if well designed learn-the virtual world that can later shape their behavioural patterns ing occurs as a side effect of gaming. The approach can be dif-and directly influence their reflection, etc. (Pivec & Kearney, ferent, if we approach Serious Games as learning elements that2007). can be integrated in multiple learning environments. In this way Serious Games can be a part of formal, non-formal or informalSquire (Squire, 2006, 2007) is arguing that instructional theory learning settings. According to Colardyn and Bjørnåvold (2005)approaches need to seek to explain how particular game-based the different learning forms have to be approach in a two di-approaches work within particular contexts. This is what eVI- mensional framework: 1. Structure of the context 2. IntentionTA is ambitious of doing. By developing four different versions to learn.based on four different pedagogies, eVITA evaluates how thesefour different approaches work within particular context and in Intention to learn Structure of the context Learning is intentional Learning is non-intentional Planned learning activities Formal learning Non-formal learning Planned activities (or contextual learning) No planning Informal learningTable 1: Definiting formal, non-formal and informal learning according to learning intention and structure of the context. Source: Colardyn and Bjornavold (2005). ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • eL ers 25 u ers.e gpap .elea rnin n.º 25 • July 2011 Pap www 3
  4. 4. From the fieldDepending on the adopted perspective, Serious Games can be vide an open learning environment, supporting each individualframed in different areas of the above table: If defined as an learning choice and learning-motivation. Serious Games doesindependently running learning environment with integrate not restrain when, where and why learning occurs.pedagogical elements such as didactical design, help, phases, The American National Educational Technology Plan 2010 (shortassessment and feedback, social interaction applications, etc. NETP) presents a model of 21st century learning powered bySerious Games are aimed at intentional learning and usually technology, with goals and recommendations in five areas:embedded in planned learning activities. In this case we talk learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productiv-about formal learning. If we switch the perspective and observe ity. The plan calls for engaging and empowering learning experi-Serious Games as one possible didactical element of a more ences for all learners. It wants to bring state-of-the art technol-complex learning environment, which can be intentional (in the ogy into learning to enable, motivate, and inspire all students,educational context) but also non-intentional (purely gaming) regardless of background, languages, or disabilities, to achieve.and it can be planned (in the classroom) or non-planned (eve- It leverages the power of technology to provide personalizedrywhere) as merely leisure activity. Then we can define Serious learning instead of a one-size-fits-all curriculum, pace of teach-Games as suitable elements in every type of learning. And this ing, and instructional practices. Serious Games would fit per-is one particular gain of Serious Games in education. Educa- fectly in this educational plan.tion is heading to a big change. The lines between formal andinformal, planned or unplanned learning are more and more Serious Games support students mobility, can be developed byblurred, and mostly a shift to less formal education occurs. students and shared with others, allows students to participateSefton-Green (2004) mentions that the use of computer in and in social networks to collaborate and learn new things. Quotingoutside the classroom allow children and young people a wide the Executive summary of NETP (2010, p. 4): “Outside school,variety of activities and experiences that can support learning, students are free to pursue their passions in their own way andyet many of these transactions do not take place in traditional at their own pace. The opportunities are limitless, borderless,educational settings, often synonymous for formal learning. In and instantaneous.” In this interpretation of future learning Se-this contextual change Serious Games contain a great potential rious Games are definitely excellent knowledge buildings toolsto a) set clear pedagogical aims but at the same time b) pro- in every learning situation. 
Source: “Model of Learning” NETP (2010, p. 27) ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • eL ers 25 u ers.e gpap .elea rnin n.º 25 • July 2011 Pap www 4
  5. 5. From the field4. The e-VITA experience however should be to balance the two, in order to create an optimal experience and achieve a completely focused playerThe e-VITA project (“European Life Experiences”) proposes motivation in line with the theory of flow proposed by Csik-an innovative and creative methodology for intergenerational szentmihalyi (1996). Successful games are those that can bringknowledge sharing and transfer (intergenerational learning), players in a mental state of operation, in which they find them-which combines storytelling and SGs. Intergenerational learn- selves fully immersed in the game environment and compelleding, which refers to the sharing of information, thoughts, feel- to explore and experiment further. According to Csikszentmiha-ings and experiences between different generations. Typically lyi (1996) the eight components that contribute to an optimalthis process is informal, taking place during regular everyday experience are:exchanges with older relatives and friends, but can also be pro-moted through organised or planned activities (e.g. elderly peo- • Clearly defined goalsple making lectures in schools, school children visiting nursing • Concentration on task at handhomes, reminiscence projects, etc). • Merging of action and awarenesse-VITA, in addition to demonstrating the learning potential of • An altered sense of timeSGs for the purposes of intergenerational learning, is also setto highlight and investigate important aspects of games design. • Clear and responsive feedbackIn particular, the project explores the pedagogic dimension of • Balanced level of challenge and difficultySGs through the adoption of four differing approaches, imple-mented and analysed in the form of four distinct SGs. Each has • A sense of control over the task at handthe same learner, context, and representational medium, yet • A challenging task requiring skill to executethe pedagogic underpinnings are varied so as to provide a basisfor comparative study. The four approaches include: In this light, three critical dimensions emerge in educational games development. In line with the threefold nature of SGs 1. A narrative-based game which uses storytelling to achieve as: (a) IT products, (b) Games and (c) Learning Instruments, ef- engagement and flow; in this respect it can be seen to fective SGs need to be (a) technically sound and easy-to-use IT draw on oral history pedagogy (King & Stahl, 1990); products, (b) fun and engaging games and (c) effective learning 2. An experiential game, where the player is transferred into instruments that lead to the desired learning outcome. the state of affairs faced by the narrator, and as such in- The preliminary validation of the e-VITA prototype game (an ex- fluenced by situative pedagogy; periential game evolving around the adventures of a journalist 3. A puzzle-based game, wherein the player has to solve who has to write an article about the “East and West block” and puzzles and overcome challenges in order to proceed, the times before the fall of the Berlin wall) involved a broad tar- and finally; get group from several European countries (Spain, Portugal, Po- land, Italy, Greece, UK), namely young people (school children 4. An exploratory game focused on increasing the learner’s and young adults) interested in acquiring intergenerational and zone of proximal development by directing them to web intercultural knowledge by means of game playing. It featured and other external material and resources in order to a questionnaire-based evaluation that was complimented by in- overcome the challenges or problems presented by the formal interviews, during which users were asked to elaborate game. on their feedback/rating. The three analysis dimensions includ-Overall, games represent a complex electronic medium, de- ed: technical solidity & usability, cognitive & affective aspectssigned to allow users to experience an artefact, a situation etc. and pedagogical aspects (achievement of learning outcome),Setting up effective SGs is a complex task that requires meticu- yet particular attention was placed on usability issues and cog-lous planning following a holistic examination of a number of nitive and affective aspects, namely on the game’s graphical de-parameters. Often game design either focuses solely on the sign, navigation, story line etc, as well as on its ability to achievelearning goal (e.g. on teaching a specific skill or procedure) thus player involvement and motivation, or to induce enjoyment andgiving player entertainment a lesser role, or accentuates the fun emotions (e.g. gratification). The transferring of factual knowl-elements of game playing at the cost of learning. The purpose edge was also investigated. ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • eL ers 25 u ers.e gpap .elea rnin n.º 25 • July 2011 Pap www 5
  6. 6. From the fieldOverall the evaluation results were satisfactory. Some aspects perience and they believe the gaming experience improves theof the game were criticised, yet all attributes have received a retention of new knowledge gained.positive rating. For example this was the case with the game’s Similarly, varying points of view were recorded among male and“graphical design” and “navigation”. Among the critics some female respondents. Based on the evaluation results it wouldquestioned the use of two-dimensional design which they char- seem that the prototype game appeals more to female users.acterised as “Old”, others the use of photographs, the design More specifically, female gamers appreciate more look of theof the characters, the use of colour, the lack of movement etc. game and also have a more clear view of the game’s objectives,Most users responded that they had no problem concentrating appreciate more the instructions and feedback provided duringwhile enjoying the contents of the game. Yet the majority disa- and at the end of the game, would be more motivated to seekgrees that “the activities proposed in the game were engaging additional information after having played the game and alsoand “kept interest alive”. would be more willing to repeat the experience compared to male users. 3,5 Figure 2 illustrates the major points of 3 deviation recorded. 2,5 These gender and age differences 2 20- that are often evident in leisure gam- 20+ ing clearly stress the need to take 1,5 gender and age into consideration 1 during game design. This clearly dem- 0,5 onstrates that it is difficult to create a game that appeals equally to all. 0 The patterns of game-play of the in- If it was a free feeling at ease remember the game content game design is practice on an new things I while playing argument of tended target group should be taken easier to is clear attractive into consideration during SGs design, in order to achieve an optimal mix be- tween education and entertainment.Figure 1: Deviation on preference between under 20 and over 20Some differences between age groups(i.e. under and over 20 years old users)and also between female and male re-spondents were evident, while therewere no significant variations with re-spect to the country.Figure 1 illustrates the major points ofdeviation between 20+ and 20- users.Overall, it would seem that the proto-type game appeals more to 20+ play-ers, who feel more in command whileusing the game, understand better thecontent of the game and appreciatemore the way the different life situa-tions are presented. Older users would 
be more interested in repeating the ex- Figure 2: Differences on preference between males and females ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • eL ers 25 u ers.e gpap .elea rnin n.º 25 • July 2011 Pap www 6
  7. 7. From the fieldWhile SGs have a clear value for transmitting explicit, factual when some groups of the young target group were interviewedknowledge, perhaps their greater strength relates to the trans- both in Italy and in Germany. Overall around 90 students wereferring of tacit knowledge, skills, behaviours that can be embed- interviewed (Hetzner & Pannese, 2009), both teen-agers in theded in games. The purpose of SGs used in the context of inter- 14-18 years age group and university students (Pannese, Hall-generational learning, is not only to engage/entertain younger meier, Hetzner & Confalonieri, 2009). This participatory ap-generations of players, or convey practical or historical informa- proach already underlined several aspects, like the difference intion about past decades, but rather to immerse players in this expectations which vary quite substantially between the teen-era and allow them to experience the life of older generations. ager groups and the university students, although again thisIn this light it would be difficult for many users to put into words difference is reduced, once teen-agers are able to focus on se-what they have learning by playing this game. rious games as alternative learning means to some more “clas- sical” or “formal” approach, which they consider boring and5. Conclusions: Challenges in design and definitely non-entertaining. Making them imagine that informal approaches like gaming could be introduced in their formal cur- development of games for formal- ricula and lessons, makes them much more flexible and able to informal learning accept compromise as well as it reduces their expectations. ThisThe Games are normally by their intrinsic nature a means for in- was definitely the case when discussing the gaming interfaceformal learning, although they can be used in formal settings as in the above mentioned focus groups. While to them a gamewell as for self-regulated learning. Independently on how they interface must definitely be a high sophisticated 3D, especiallymight be used, there are several challenges that designers and for males, when considering an informal learning approach,developers of serious games must face, some pertaining more they would “surrender” accepting 2D, simple interface. Univer-to the learning aspect, some more to the gaming aspect and sity students on the other hand tend to have expectations thatsome others to technological and implementation details. are more similar to the teachers’ ones: they concentrate much more on the contents and on the engagement that is induced byTo sum up the most frequent challenges the following can be interesting and sometimes surprising, new information. Teach-listed: ers definitely concentrate on contents that must be in line with • matching users’ expectations topics that they teach in formal lessons and need some certain- • matching trainers’ expectations ty that no bias was introduced for narrative or engagement rea- • finding balance between learning & fun/engagement sons. They envisage some games that can guarantee a flexible use for them, a meaningful experience for the learners, some • finding a form suited for self-learning but also for introduc- cross-discipline content to work on students skills and enable tion in a training programme at the same time to guarantee them to bridge gaps between one subject and another. These freedom of use gaps are sometimes even provoked by formal lessons, when • giving enough guidance without taking the challenge away each teacher considers their subjects and no exercise allows and without interfering with the narrative and the game some critical thinking about connections between different top- play ics and subjects. The point in this context is definitely reflection • how to give meaningful feedback that can be triggered through the gaming experience. As Watt • how to make it a meaningful experience (2009) puts it, it is the intended result of playing the game that • how to involve the emotional side of the learner defines it as serious, not the playing activity itself. • how to consider gender-dependent aspects Interestingly enough, most of the expectation to have fun and be • being close to context (no bias in the content to introduce active must be used and enhanced by teachers: it is the way to narrative aspects) introduce the informal factors in the formal setting that makes • graphical appeal every feedback and the whole experience meaningful and that allows to maximize context-bound reflection and thus situatedWe will not enter in technological details here, but we will re- learning. Very much of the learning outcome depends on theflect about and investigate some of the challenges that emerged overall experience set up around and with the game, turningalready from the 2 focus groups held during the e-VITA project, game play into a social activity. This is true within a group or in a ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • eL ers 25 u ers.e gpap .elea rnin n.º 25 • July 2011 Pap www 7
  8. 8. From the fieldclassroom but also in self-regulated learning with online group To conclude, there is no unambiguous answer to the challengesdynamics and social online interaction around the game. This while confronting with the creative experience of conceiving asocial phenomenon can be observed even with simple exam- serious game: everything must carefully de designed and de-ples (not even serious games) in Facebook, like FarmVille for veloped according to the specific use that will be done of theexample. serious game, of the target group, their skills, preferences, ex- perience with these tools, the experience of the teacher andAt the same time, the core role of the teacher is determining the role that informal methods will take up in formal learningif a good balance between fun and learning can be reached. settings. Probably the reason for this is, as Watt (2009) puts it,Obviously the serious game itself must already contain some that serious games research nowadays is facing the same chal-valid learning elements as well as some engaging aspects but lenges that HCI (Human-Computer-Interaction) was facing 15the whole experience can be changed or even reversed accord- years to the specific use of the game and its context of use. Thisagain brings us to another challenge: how much guidance mustbe given inside the game and how much can or should be givenaround it by the teacher? Or again: how much can be delegatedto peer-to-peer supporting and teaching? This has to do oncemore with meaningful feedback as well: in order to be mean-ingful, feedback should again probably be adaptive to the spe-cific user/player and his or her specific competences or level ofexpertise (Bente & Breuer, 2009). On the one hand feedbackmust be given within the game play (without disturbing or inter-rupting this) and as part of the game, which means that carefulattention must be given by learners to details of dialogues orhappenings that should unveil what other characters think, howthey perceive the player’s actions or how the dynamics of theaction change. On the other hand a final, explicit feedback mustbe given, which allows analyzing every decision, behaviour andconsequence during the game play. ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • eL ers 25 u ers.e gpap .elea rnin n.º 25 • July 2011 Pap www 8
  9. 9. From the fieldReferences Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2005). Beyond edutainment: Exploring the educational potential of computer games. University of Copenhagen,Alvarez, J., & Michaud, L. (2008). Serious games: Advergaming, Copenhagen.edugaming, training and more. Montpellier, France: IDATE. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning andBeck, J. C., & Wade, M. (2004). Got game: How the gamer genera- literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.tion is reshaping business forever: Harvard business school press. Boston,MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hetzner, S., & Pannese, L. (2009). E-vita, life simulations in an intergenerational setting. Journal of eLearning and Knowledge SocietyBell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative assessment and science edu- (JELKS), 5(2 Focus on Simulations).cation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. King, J., & Stahl, N. (1990). Oral history as a critical pedagogy:Bente, G., & Breuer, J. (2009). Making the implicit explicit: Em- Some cautionary issues, Annual Meeting of the American Readingbedded measurement in serious games. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody Forum. Florida, USA.& P.Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games mechanisms and effects. New York/London: Routledge. National_Educational_Technology_Plan. (2010). Transforming american education: Learning powered by technology: U.S. Department ofBereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as Education: Office of Educational Technology.a goal of instruction. In B. L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, andinstruction: Essays in honor of robert glaser (pp. 361-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Pannese, L., Hallmeier, R., Hetzner, S., & Confalonieri, L.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (2009, 12-13 October). Storytelling and serious games for creative learn- ing in an intergenerational setting. Paper presented at the 3rd EuropeanBreuer, J., & Bente, G. (2010). Why so serious? On the relation Conference on Games Based Learning (ECGBL), Graz, Austria,of serious games and learning. Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game 303-311.Culture, 4(1), 7-24. Pappa, D., Dunwell, I., Protopsaltis, A., Pannese, L., et al.Colardyn, D., & Bjørnåvold, J. (2005). The learning continuity: (In Press). Game-based learning for knowledge sharing and trans-European inventory on validating non-formal and informal learning. Na- fer: The e-vita approach for intergenerational learning. In P. Feliciational policies and practices in validating non-formal and informal learning. (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving learning and motivation throughLuxembourg: CEDEFOP Panorama. educational games: Multidisciplinary approaches: IGI Global.Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of Pivec, M., & Kearney, P. (2007). Games for learning and learningdiscovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial. from games. Informatica, 31(2007), Freitas, S. (2006). Using games and simulations for supporting Prensky, M. (2002). The motivation of gameplay. On the Horizon,learning. Learning, Media and Technology Special Issue on Gaming, 31(4), 10(1).343-358. Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me mom, i’m learning. St. Paul,de Freitas, S., & Neumann, T. (2009). The use of ‘exploratory MN: Paragon House.learning’ for supporting immersive learning in virtual environ-ments. Computers and Education, 52(2), 343-352. Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., & Vorderer, P. (2009). Serious games: Mechanisms and effects. New York/London: Freitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2005). A four dimensional frame-work for the evaluation and assessment of educational games, Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility forComputer Assisted Learning Conference. the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Freitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory learn-ing with games and simulations within the curriculum be most Sefton-Green, J. (2004). Literature review in informal learning witheffectively evaluated? Computers and Education, 46(3), 249-264. technology outside school (No. Report 7). Bristol: Future Lab. ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eueL ers 25 u ers.e gpap .elea rnin n.º 25 • July 2011Pap www 9
  10. 10. From the fieldSquire, K. (2004). Replaying history: Learning world history through Tissot, P. (2004). Terminology of vocational training policy: A multilin-playing civilization iii. Indiana University, Indiana, USA. gual glossary for an enlarged europe. Luxembourg: Cedefop: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Squire, K. (2006). From content to context:Video games as de-signed experiences. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19-29. Torrente, J., Moreno-Ger, P., Fernández-Manjón, B., & del Blanco, A. (2009). Game-like simulations for online adaptiveSquire, K. (2007). Games, learning, and society: Building a field. learning: A case study, Edutainment 2009 Fourth International Confer-Educational Technology, 4(5), 51-54. ence on ELearning and Games. Banff, Canada.Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2003). Harnessing the power of games Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just thein education. Insight, 3, 5-33. digital natives who are restless. 41(2), 16–30.Susi, T., Johanesson, M., & Backlund, P. (2007). Serious games - Van Eck, R. (2007). Building artificially intelligent learningan overview (technical report). Skövde, Sweden: University of Skövde. games. In V. Sugumaran (Ed.), Intelligent information technologies:Tissot, P. (2000). Glossary on identification, assessment and Concepts, methodologies, tools and applications: IGI Global.recognition of qualifications and competences and transparency Watt, H. J. (2009). Improving methodology in serious gamesand transferability of qualifications. In J. Bjornavold (Ed.), Making research with elaborated theory. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody & P.learning visible: Identification, assessment and recognition of non-formal Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games mechanisms and effects. New York/Lon-learning in europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of don: Routledge.the European Communities. Edition and production Name of the publication: eLearning Papers Copyrights ISSN: 1887-1542 The texts published in this journal, unless otherwise indicated, are subject Publisher: to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks Edited by: P.A.U. Education, S.L. 3.0 Unported licence. They may be copied, distributed and broadcast pro- Postal address: c/Muntaner 262, 3r, 08021 Barcelona (Spain) vided that the author and the e-journal that publishes them, eLearning Phone: +34 933 670 400 Papers, are cited. Commercial use and derivative works are not permitted. Email: The full licence can be consulted on Internet: es/by-nc-nd/3.0/ ing earn eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eueL ers 25 u ers.e gpap .elea rnin n.º 25 • July 2011Pap www 10