This document discusses serious games and the challenges of combining game design and didactic design. Serious games aim to educate rather than solely entertain. The challenge is developing an engaging game that also ensures the intended learning occurs. This requires multidisciplinary collaboration between game designers, subject matter experts, and instructional designers. Developing a shared language and frequent meetings are important. Serious games have potential applications for treating PTSD in soldiers by exposing them to trauma through games. Assessing learning in games requires new approaches compared to traditional methods.

1. Niels Henrik Helms

2. Whatarewetalkingabout
?
A serious game is a game in which education (in
its various forms) is the primary goal, rather than
entertainment. (Michael & Chen, 2006)
Games may be played seriously or casually. We
are concerned with serious games in the sense
that these games have an explicit and carefully
thought-out educational purpose and are not
intended to be played primarily for amusement.
This does not mean that serious games are not,
or should not be entertaining. (Abt, 1970/71)

3. A Paradox?
• No, all games areserious –
othervisetheyaredull and not games!
• But we do have a challenge!!

4. The Challenge!
Serious Games brings two disciplines and rationalities
into interaction:
• Didactic Design – Where the outcome is Learning
• Game Design – Where the outcome is Winning
• Didactic Design is basically about giving form to learning
– where gaming could be one of the means to achieve
learning
• Whereas Game design is about giving form to a game.
People do learn through gaming– but it is definitely not
the purpose/goal.

5. Traditional, Vocationalor
GBL Traditional Hands-on Learning GBL
Training
Price x (x)
Standardised– easy x x
to evaluate
Engaging x x
Adaptive x x
Instant Feedback x x
Transfer x (x)
Learner as subject (x) x
Authentic x (x)

6. MULTI DISCIPLINARITY
• To solve this challenge. On the one hand to develop an
engaging motivating game design and on he other hand
to ensure that the intended learning happens – NOT
CROSS – BUT MULTI DISCIPLINARITY IS A MUST
• If it is a bad game design no one will use the game – or
the players will try to transform the non-game into a
game
• If it is a bad didactic design people will learn – but
probably something else
• .

7. So Unite
• Game Designers – The wholecrowd
• Didactic Designers – SME’s,
Instructional Designers and
Interaction Designers
• Worktogetherdevelop a language and
concepts
• Meetings

8. Observing Constructing
Re-Constructing Co-Constructing

9. Observing Constructing
Re-Constructing Co-Constructing

10. http://gamesforhealth.dk/

11. Games and Soldiers
• It is good for them:
• 3-4 hours of video gaming daily proved across a large
sample survey of the Army stationed in Afghanistan to
provide the best protection against PTSD, depression,
family violence and suicidal ideation. The only activity
that provided more mental resilience was 5-6 hours of
physical training daily; 3-4 hours of video gaming beat
reading, music, general Internet/social
networking, and physical training up to 5 hours/day.
• However, more than 4 hours of gaming showed
dangerous declines in mental resilience 7-8 hours a
day or more, as bad as no gaming-- and no gaming
was very bad.

12. But War is not Good for
Them
• PTSD (PostTraumatic Stress
Disorder)
• Growing Problem
• Treatment – various forms such as
exposure therapy (ET)

13. MultiDisciplinarity
• Apex - Game Developers
• Serious Games Interactive (SGI)
• Falck A/S
• Shelterland
• PhotobiaApS
• Siemens Healthcare
• The Central Association of Permanent
Defense Personnel (CS)

14. • Region HovedstadensPsykiatri,
• The Danish Research Unit of
Psychological Trauma
• DI - Confederation of Danish Industry
• The IT University
• Knowledge Lab

15. OngoingProcess
• What is PTSD
• What makes it happen
• How do we cope with it
• Integration in Game & Didactic
Design
• To develop new practises

16. Game Design
• Goals
• Rules
• Feedback
• Authentic
• A Strong”Gameplay”
(anotherstrangeword)

17. Comming Up..
• AffectiveGaming - &Learning
• AugmentedGaming - &Learning
Nacke, L.E., Kalyn, M., Lough, C., Mandryk, R.L. (2011). Biofeedback Game Design:
UsingDirect and IndirectPhysiologicalControl to Enhance Game Interaction. In Proceedings
of CHI 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada

18. Situated learning – Multi
Modal
I hear, I know
Deeper
Auditory Learning
Visual
Kinaesthetic
I see, I remember I do, I understand

19. http://janemcgonigal.com/

20. Assessment and GBL

21. Assessingvs GBL
1990ies
Performance Assessment
in vivo fx Portfolio
Does 70ies:
1970ies-80ies Performance
assessment
Shows How in vitro (OSCE)
Knows how 1960ies:
Written complex
simulations
Knows

22. Assessingvs GBL
“Generic Competences
Does - How we cope if things turn out differently”
Shows
How
Knows How
Knows

23. Weare not just looking!!

24. References
Abt, C.C. (1970/71). Serious Games. N.Y.,VikingPress
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). Third Generation Educational Use of Computer Games. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. v16,3.
Fullerton, T., Swain, C., Hoffman, S.(2008). Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. Amsterdam: Elsevier Morgan Kaufmann, 2008.
Gale,K, et al (2002): TriadicAssessment, Assessment&Evaluation in HigherEducation, 27:6, 557-567
Klopfer, E., K. Squire, and H. Jenkin. n.d. Environmentaldetectives:The development of an augmented reality platform for environmentalsimulations. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE
Computer Society Publications.
Logan, K.,R.(2001).The SixthLanguage: Learning a Living in the Internet Age”
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World . PenguinPress.
Michael, D., &Chen, S. (2006). Serious games: Games thateducate, train and inform. Thomson: Boston, MA
Miller GE.(1990) The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Academic Medicine (Supplement); 65: S63-S7.
Nacke, L.E., Kalyn, M., Lough, C., Mandryk, R.L. (2011). Biofeedback Game Design: UsingDirect and IndirectPhysiologicalControl to Enhance Game Interaction. In Proceedings
of CHI 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & D. Swanson, D. (1990). Assessment of Clinical Skills With Standardized Patients: State of the Art. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 2(2), 58 - 76.
Van derVleuten, C. P. M., &Newble, D. I. (1995). How can we test clinical reasoning? The Lancet, 345, 1032-1034.
Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Norman, G. R., & De Graaff, E. (1991). Pitfalls in the pursuit of objectivity: Issues of reliability. Medical Education, 25, 110-118.
Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Schuwirth, L. W. T. (2005). Assessment of professional competence: from methods to programmes. Medical Education, 39, 309-317.
Slideshows: www.slideshare.net/timbuckteeth/redesigning-learning-spaces-for-a-digital-world
MHPE Lessons learned in Assesment.ppt

25. illustrations
• Slide # 1. By presenter
• Slide # 8 By presenter
• Slide # 9 By presenter +
http://www.mundopapercraft.com/blog/2010/11/j
osef-the-robot/ (manipulated)
• Slide #
18www.slideshare.net/timbuckteeth/redesigning-
learning-spaces-for-a-digital-world
• Slide # 19 http://www.avantgame.com/
• Slide # 21 & 22 MHPE Lessons learned in
Assesment.ppt