WP2 Research & Development (Year 2)

1. WP2Research & Development (Year 2) S. Arnab, S. de Freitas, F. Bellotti, T. Lim, I. Stanescu, P. Moreno-ger, A. Brisson, G. Pereira, M. Romero, M. Ninaus, J. Earp, E. Friedrich, S. Kober, B. Manjon, S. Louchart, N. Suttie, E. Boyle, M. Ott, D. Brown, D. Djaoti, J.P. Jessel

2. Content • Introduction • Key challengesin year 1 • Response to reviewer comments • Key activities in year 2 • Year 2 outcomes • Key frameworks • Priority Areas • Summary of contributions of thematic areas • Further work in year 3 • Conclusions

3. Introduction: Looking back at year 1 • Key challenges: • Lack of comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of SGs for learning • The evidence of the relationship between learning transfers and learning experience using SGs. • Complex relationships between pedagogy, learning and game mechanics. • Vast majority of gaming and learning components, such as game engines and learning objects are not made specifically for serious gaming purposes. • Significant gaps occurs between research and industry practices in terms of standardisation.

4. Introduction: Response to reviewers’ comments • The resubmitted D2.1 has addressed key recommendations from Year 1 review – acknowledged in the Supplementary Review Report. • Focus has been maintained on games for learning in Year 2 • Top down approach - the key thematic areas and research questions had driven Year 2 collaborative activities. • The advancement of the state of the art has been addressed in year 2 (D2.2) , where user experience is one of the key focus (e.g. engaging game play experience while ensuring a meaningful learning process) • Frameworks aiming to advance stealth assessment for SGs, pedagogical and gaming patterns, flow analysis (seeSuttie et al. 2012, Stanescu et al. 2012, del Blanco et al. 2012, Lim et al. 2012, etc.)

5. Introduction: Arising key areas from year 1 • Development of a more comprehensive assessmentof SG effectiveness for learningthat considers the long-term nature of the impact of knowledge and skills learned via SGs. • A more pedagogically driven design and development of SGs reflecting the complex relationships between pedagogy, learning and game mechanics (entertainment) and taking into account user modelling and user-centred approach. • New standards and frameworks for serious games able to ensure (1) that game content (characters, learning objects, etc.), can be easily reused and repurposed and (2) that authoring tools for practitioners will be effective and easy to use.

6. Updating and building knowledge base Activities in Year 2 • SoA Analysis • GALA R&D frameworks • e.g. LM-GM, SG-MIF • 6 RQs • JRAs & RQs under Thematic Areas • SG Studies • WP1, WP3 • SG study template • 34 educational games

7. Year 2 Outcomes: Key Frameworks Analysing flow Learning analytics Learning – Game Mechanics Multimodal Interoperability Framework

8. Year 2 Outcomes: Priority Areas • Assessing learners, analysing learning and adaptability • The GLAS (Games Learning Analytics System) framework • Flow analysis of learners including playability • Understanding games for learning constructs to aid evaluation and design • Learning-Game Mechanics model (LM-GM) towards defining Serious Games Mechanics (SGM) • Encapsulating key elements for a successful development and deployment of SGs for learning • The SG-MIF extended with assets from SG Mechanics, SG Architecture, Assessment and Pedagogy, with focus on reusability solutions (models, algorithms, game engines) and emerging analytics standards tofoster efficient SG projects and increase the overall quality of SG ecosystems.

9. Summary: Thematic area 1 • Advancing areas: • Data management (big data), data analysis, sensor data fusion, stealth assessment (non-intrusive) and user feedback mechanisms • GaLA contributions to the field: • SG-Tailored Learning Analytics: the GLAS (Games Learning Analytics System) framework for analysing play traces to monitor, understand and adapt to the learners • Neuro-Spectral: on-going studies on neuro spectral player characterization (in particular the flow and presence state) • SG studies (using the SG Study Framework):on-going focusing on assessment and feedback mechanics and on the use of SGs as knowledge verification tools

10. Summary: Thematic area 2 • Learner and pedagogy centric: to design better SGs and deploy more effectively • GaLA contributions to the field: • Stealth measurement: Link with thematic area 1 • User modeling: as a necessary step towards adaptability and personalization • Serious Games Mechanics: the relationship between learning and game mechanics. • Flow analysis: a non-intrusive approach • Dialogue Management System: for SG players’ interactive knowledge discovery (early lab user tests – WP1) • Deployment - blended learning: Preliminary results from a synergic project (eSG, on design and deployment of a HE course on entrepreneurship through SGs) have shown that the use of blended learning, including the employment of SGs, looks particularly suited and appealing, especially for certain educational areas and to promote the 21st Century Skills and higher-order thinking skills.

11. Theme 1 + Theme 2: Assessment and design Measuring flow and neurocognition Linking game design to pedagogical patterns (LM-GM model) Tracking learners and adapt (GLAS model) Iterative development process Goal: engaging game play experience while ensuring a meaningful learning process User modelling for adaptation

12. Summary: Thematic Area 3 • The extension of the Serious Games Multidimensional Interoperability Framework (SG-MIF) • Interoperability issues: at macro and micro levels

13. Further work in Year 3 • Y3+Y4: Frameworks exploitation in conjunction with the overall GaLASG Service Framework (SG-SF) • Year 3 activities: • Key WP2 activities: Applying, validating and evaluating the frameworks • GALA activity: SG Studies according to the GaLA SG studies Framework • Focused studies and experiments: on hot topics for research, e.g. stealth/embedded assessment, provision of informative feedback, use of tablets PCs in particular for formal education, the QSensor, high-order (expert-like) thinking support, user experience, more empirical studies.

14. Coordination and Reporting • Coordination:Work will be streamlined under the three focused areas identified in main WP2 activity. Each key area will be led by the appointed TC. • Learner assessment and adaptivity(lead: TC2.6) • Included TCs: assessment, AI, Neurosciences, psychology, (HCI) • Games for learning constructs to aid evaluation and design(lead: TC2.1) • Included TCs: SG mechanics, architecture, HCI, pedagogy, (psychology) • Interoperability for efficient development and deployment of SGs (lead: TC2.5) • Included TCs: Interoperability, assessment, architecture, pedagogy • Reporting will be streamlined: as well into 3 key reports under the thematic areas (will clearly indicate contributions and amount of contributions from other TCs) • The key findings from the 3 reports will be integrated and synthesized: WP2 D 2.3 synthesis report.

15. Conclusions • WP2 has further explored key areas identified in year 1 and addressed issues raised by the reviews. • Serious Games for Learning has been the key focus. • Identified key areas to be further developed, validated and exploited as key GaLA contributions to the field. • WP2 measures and publications: WP2 measures is documented in appendix B. We have currently 61 articles (published and in press). • 24 Category 1 (Tier 1 journals and conferences) • 8 Category 2 (other peer-reviewed journals and book chapters) • 29 Category 3 (other peer-reviewed conferences) • 10 CORE A • 1 CORE C.