The Case for Greater Investment in Serious Games by Commercial Industries Abstract

In addition to entertainment, computer games and tutorials have been widely used in education since the time computers were made available to the public. Computers have been used at elementary through collegiate levels in academia to teach basic academic skills and develop advanced conceptual proficiencies. Outside of academia, computers have been utilized in industry and government to facilitate continued professional learning as well. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) was a pioneer in the field of computer assisted learning, developing programs and interactive games to augment service member training. The DoD even coined the term “serious game” to make the programs more palatable to Congress in order to appropriate funds for their development.[5]⁵

By and large, organizational success and productivity correlate directly to the professional knowledge of the organizations’ employees. However, scheduling instruction during normal work hours or pulling employees away from their normal duties to attend professional development courses upsets operational tempos in the workplace and can cause temporary declines in productivity. Motivating employees to participate in work-study programs outside of work hours or during periods of low activity can be difficult. The challenge organizations face is developing engaging continued learning programs which will capture the interest of employees.

A new generation of digital natives are now entering the workforce. Many of these digital natives are confronted with considerable learning curves to adapt to their entry-level positions, while more seasoned veterans face challenges adjusting to changes in environmental factors. Numerous studies exist validating the learning value of computer games and computer tutorials. This paper will explore the question of whether or not commercial industries would be well served, in aspects of resource efficiency and proficiency gains, by investing in serious games to promote continued learning in their respective fields.

• 
  Affordances – The allowable actions specified by the environment coupled with the properties of the organism. In distributed cognition, affordances can be considered as distributed representations extended across the environment and the organism.[6]⁶
  
• 
  Cognitive Affordance – Affordances provided by cultural conventions. (i.e., for traffic lights, red means “stop”, yellow means “prepare to stop”, and green means “go”).[7]⁷
  
• 
  Distributed Cognition – A scientific discipline that is concerned with how cognitive activity is distributed across internal human minds, external cognitive artifacts, and groups of people, and how it is distributed across space and time.[8]⁸
  
• 
  HCI – Human-Computer Interaction; also called human-computer interface design.[9]⁹
  
• 
  Hybridization – The techniques and representational formats of previous physical and electronic media forms, and the new information manipulation techniques and data formats unique to a computer are brought together in new combinations.[10]¹⁰
  
• 
  MMOG – Massively Multiplayer Online Games.[11]¹¹
  
• 
  Remix – Different media types get remixed together, forming new combinations, in the process of computer metamedium development.[12]¹²
  
• 
  Serious games – Educational computer games which place players in roles and situations where they are forced to exercise strategizing, hypothesis testing, or problem-solving skills for the purpose of exploring interpersonal development and cognitive processes to better enable them to manage challenges.
  

• 
  What are Serious Games?
  

Serious games have been developed to address a diverse range of activities and issues. Serious games have been used in the military to prepare soldiers to engage local nationals overseas in shuras, or traditional Middle Eastern meetings. On the geopolitical, social, and commercial sides, serious games have been developed to advocate sustainable development, defined as the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the subsequent generations to cater to their future needs.[15]¹⁵ Examples of these serious games include Climate Challenge in which the player assumes the role of the President of European Nations and must tackle climate change while maintaining enough popular support to remain in office; EnerCities in which the player serves as the mayor of a city and decides on residential building types to be developed, the business and industries that are needed, environmental actions, citizens’ well-being through services offerings, and the source for generating energy to support city needs; and Shortfall which focuses on the supply chain management of an automotive plant that comprises five echelons: (a) raw materials, (b) second-tier materials, (c) parts producer, (d) car producer, and (e) the consumer.[16]¹⁶

BBC - Science & Nature - Climate Challenge

Enercities

shortfall

Not all education games fall into the category of serious games. Therefore it is important to distinguish serious games from some of the other forms of game learning. Edutainment games are those which follow a skill and drill format in which players either practice repetitive skills or rehearse memorized facts.[17]¹⁷ Edutainment games are suitable for elementary school levels or for developing foundations for specific subjects, but they do not incorporate the strategizing, hypothesis testing, or problem-solving skills inherent in serious games. A more overarching term used by members of the computer gaming industry is gamification. Gamification is defined as the use of game attributes outside the context of a game with the purpose of affecting learning-related behaviors or attitudes.[18]¹⁸ These behaviors or attitudes influence learning by strengthening the relationship between instructional design quality and outcomes (a moderating process) and/or by influencing learning directly (a mediating process).[19]¹⁹ This differs from a serious games approach in which manipulation of game attributes is typically designed to affect learning without this type of behavioral mediator.[20]²⁰

As much acclaim as computer game learning has received, instructional computer games still have their detractors and critics. Richard Van Eck, graduate director of the Instructional Design & Technology department at the University of North Dakota, commented that both edutainment and instructional computer games have received a terrible reputation for being the worst type of education.[21]²¹ Seymour Papert characterized instructional computer games as Shavian reversals, referring to offspring that keep the worst traits of the parents and lose the good traits.[22]²² For serious games to be effective, they must stimulate the learner’s imagination, elicit emotional responses, and adhere to effective design.

• 
  Effective Design Principals for Serious Games
  

By participating in serious games, learners develop cognitive skills through legitimate peripheral participation, at times not even discerning that the activity they are participating in is building a foundation of situational knowledge. This learning is accelerated when participants interact and collaborate with peers in community practice through distributed cognition. However, if the game itself is not enticing to players, does not assimilate practical lessons which may be applied to real-world scenarios, or does not challenge the player’s problem-solving skills, then the game will not achieve its desired outcome. “The game characteristics enable the formalization of play by transforming play from a free form activity to a structured, organized activity that is still fun.”[25]²⁵ Serious games must therefore follow effective design principals to create multimedia virtual environments which balance learning and entertainment. In her article, “Educational Video Game Design: A Review of the Literature,” Mary Jo Dondlinger identified four elements of effective video game design (motivation, narrative context, goals and rules, and interactivity and multisensory cues) which are applicable to effective design for educational computer games.[26]²⁶ This paper will add the addition element of multimedia effects, which may be the most captivating element of serious games.

Well-designed serious games are not regarded by players as training requirements they must participate in to increase professional knowledge. They are fun to play. Players are motivated to perform well by a number of factors to include the challenge of mastering a skill, joining in competitive contests with others, and vying for rewards. Denis and Jouvelot contend that effective game design considers both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for play, distinguishing the two rewards as follows: “Intrinsic motivation pushes us to act freely, on our own, for the sake of it; extrinsic motivation pulls us to act due to factors that are external to the activity itself, like reward or threat.”[27]²⁷

Numerous experts in gaming view motivation as the interplay between desire and pleasure, the desire to be competent and the pleasure one feels when one is, and argue that competence, autonomy, and relatedness are factors that affect motivation.[28]²⁸ As learners continue to play and improve their skills and competence, the games become more pleasurable which increases their desire to continue to play and improve. In keeping with Lave’s Situated Learning Theory, the cognitive lessons and skills players develop while playing the games are unintended rather than deliberate.

Narrative Context

Possessing a captivating narrative is a critical element in motivating players and sustaining the player’s attention. Transmedia storytelling is an effective technique for building an attractive narrative. Henry Jenkins contends, “A transmedia story unfolds across multiple media platforms with each new text making a distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole.”[29]²⁹ Dr. Raybourn agrees, affirming that, “transmedia storytelling for learning allows learners to engage with expanded parts of a narrative for a variety of reasons – to learn more deeply, gain a different perspective, or to reinforce.”[30]³⁰

Serious games may also enable players to inject themselves into the narratives using avatars, enabling them to interact with other players’ avatars and with characters they’ve developed personal connections with. The U.S. Army revolutionized training games by developing a capability where each soldier’s actual performance and abilities are accurately represented in their personal gaming-avatar, thus enhancing the realism of the game.[31]³¹ The military’s Human Dimension Modeling (HDM) program included attributes such as soldiers’ height, weight, body fat content, gender, race and performance attributes of weapons proficiency and aerobic fitness to produce accurate avatars that represented the soldiers’ realistic capabilities.[32]³² When players control characters that represent themselves and are designed in their likeness, the players will be motivated to perform well to a much greater extent.

The narratives may revolve around simulations which can be either experiential or symbolic in construct. Experiential simulations place players in a professional roles that require decision making in a changing problem state to accomplish tasks or goals.[33]³³ Symbolic simulations place players in a context where they are free to both experiment with different strategies and confront misconceptions to explain events, principles, or best practices.[34]³⁴ Symbolic simulations may be constructed so students can learn about the unobservable or work safely with dangerous materials or situations within a narrative in which time is manipulated to facilitate learning.[35]³⁵

The narrative is a part of the overall context of the game. Context is the setting, narrative, story, scenario, characters, back story, and problem set for the game play, all of which enhance the game’s authenticity.[36]³⁶ Michele Dickey commented that spatial and narrative contexts offer learners, “a cognitive framework for problem-solving because the narrative storyline in games provides an environment in which players can identify and construct causal patterns which integrates what is known with that which is conjectural yet plausible within the context of the story.”[37]³⁷ Though the lessons learned from playing serious games must be applicable to real-world problems, a certain amount of fantasy is applied to context to enhance pleasure and stimulate the players’ imaginations.

Fantasy as applied to learning games can be categorized as either exogenous or endogenous.[38]³⁸ Exogenous fantasy is used as reinforcement for correct behavior or response to a challenge and the exogenous aspect is typically given as a reward upon completion.[39]³⁹ Endogenous aspects have little to no disconnect between the game and the learning as the game’s fantasy aspects are not just a reward, but help develop the gamer’s knowledge.[40]⁴⁰ Most serious games would be classified as endogenous fantasy.[41]⁴¹ Regardless of how much fantasy is used in the context of the game, the learning content must align with the narrative plotline in order for serious games to be effective learning tools.

Goals and rules provide structure to serious games, both empowering players with control and restricting them with constraints to ensure the intended learning outcomes remain at the forefront of the gameplay. Dondlinger explains that although they are integrated within a narrative context, goals and rules are not subordinate to context; they are equally important elements of it.[42]⁴² Swartout and van Lent further elaborated on goals in effective video games, finding that goals of different levels help motivate learners to continue playing.[43]⁴³ “Game designers often seek to keep players engaged by creating three levels of goals: Short-term, lasting, perhaps, seconds; medium-term, lasting minutes; and finally, long-term, lasting the length of the game” and that the “interplay of these levels, with the support of the environment, is crafted to draw players into the storyline of the game.”[44]⁴⁴

Goals and rules provide players with choices within the boundaries of the games. Choice refers to the number of options and decisions a gamer has prior to and during game play.[45]⁴⁵ Three different types of choice are expressive, strategic, and tactical: Expressive choices are those that the learner makes which may have little effect on learning, but can improve learner motivation; strategic choices are those that affect the manner in which a game is played; and tactical choice refers to the gamer’s ability to make decisions about how they play the game, for example the player decides to do ‘‘x’’ instead of ‘‘y’’ in a given situation.[46]⁴⁶ Players learn from making good choices and receiving rewards, and learn from making bad choices which result in adverse consequences. The aim of serious games is for players to learn from their bad choices while playing the game so they won’t make the same poor choices in the real world.

Interactive and Multisensory Cues

Interactivity is an important aspect of the learning component of serious games. Players must have freedom to exercise options and make decisions. The degree of control a player has correlates directly to the interactivity of the game. Swartout and van Lent reasoned that the best games are “highly interactive, deliberately generating tension between the degree of control the story imposes and the player’s freedom of interaction,”[47]⁴⁷ assessing that games which afford players complete freedom of action result in boring and unchallenging play.[48]⁴⁸ Contrarily, when the context imposes too much control, the player becomes a passive observer rather than an active participant.[49]⁴⁹ Effective game design balances these extremes and offers players, “the perception they have free will, even though at any time their options are actually quite limited.”[50]⁵⁰

Multisensory cues serve as teaching aids which help guide learners toward better decisions and avoid poor decisions. A study by Salzman, Loftin, Dede, and McGlynn found that multisensory cues are a significant component of gaming, concluding that, “Multisensory cues can engage learners, direct their attention to important behaviors and relationships, help them understand new sensory perspectives, prevent errors through feedback cues, and enhance ease of use.”[51]⁵¹ Multisensory cues combined with interactivity keep players engaged and interested while curbing players within the boundaries of the learning environment.

Multimedia Effects

An important element of serious games is the multimedia appeal which stimulates the senses of the player and helps to afford an illusion of realism to the virtual world the game is played in. Serious games are played on computers, which possess the defining representational affordances of being encyclopedic, spatial, procedural, and participatory.[52]⁵² These affordances enable Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) through multiple interfaces which allow players to receive input and deliver output to the computer, as well as communicate with other players, with almost complete abstraction from the various complex protocols and interfaces which occur throughout the entire sociotechnical system. The affordances and combinatorial design of the computer also enables the remixing and hybridization of media, which enables the computers to create the stimulating virtual worlds environments.

The multimedia agency of computers enables serious games to employ the essential element of fidelity. Fidelity is the art of using graphics, audio, and video to create three-dimensional virtual worlds and artificial intelligence in order to authentically represent reality and provide true-to-life images, landscapes, sound, and dialogue which creates an exciting and immersive context.[53]⁵³ The degree of fidelity may be important for achieving the defined learning goals of the games, such as pilots requiring exact replicas of cockpit consoles, because the authenticity will help transfer knowledge to the real world.[54]⁵⁴ The realism projected by the metamedia artifacts the games are played on facilitate the ability of the players to immerse themselves in the context of the game and internalize the lessons being imparted.

In addition to utilizing high-definition graphics and avatars in visually realistic settings, serious games need to make effective use of cognitive symbolic technologies to transmit learning objectives and to provide the players means to efficiently navigate the games. Humans are cognitively wired for symbolic representation. Charles Sanders Peirce distinguished between three categories of referential associations: Icons which are mediated by a similarity between sign and object; indices which are mediated by some physical or temporal connection between sign and object; and symbols which are mediated by some formal or merely agreed-upon link irrespective of any physical characteristics of either sign or object.[55]⁵⁵ Serious games must possess the ability to employ all three categories concurrently in high tempo games.

Humans possess an innate symbolic faculty which affords them an inherent ability to link associations between technology, industry, and society. However, the utilization of referential associations is futile unless the associations within the symbolic system have uniform meaning among the game designers, users, and industry. Regis Debray argued in his book Transmitting Culture that the means of transmission, or the mediating vehicles of a symbolic system, have a double nature: The technical devices (which in the case of serious games would be the computer screen display) are added to the organic devices (organizations the players work for, the laws and regulations which govern us, and the human and machine languages used within the sociotechnical system).[56]⁵⁶ Debray argues that it is the presence of a hierarchical institution (government or industry) which distinguishes an act of transmission from a simple act of communication.[57]⁵⁷ If the symbolic system lacks cognitive affordance or uniform meaning to all within the sociotechnical system, the associations will be lost in translation. It is therefore critical that the game designers and the game users possess identical understandings of the referential associations standardized within industry and society.

Fidelity and the effective use of referential associations promote effective transmission of clear and understandable messaging from the digital artifact to the player. Effective multimedia design architecture promotes effective HCI between the player and the digital artifact. To promote effective multimedia design architecture, serious game designers may follow the Universal Principals of Design as described by Lidwell, Holden, and Butler to foster greater player enjoyment and learning.

• 
  How Do Serious Games Promote Learning?
  

The reason serious games driven by engaging narratives are successful with advancing the learning process is that the human brain is wired to pick up messages crafted as stories because people feel real emotions when they connect with content or a character in a story.[70]⁷⁰ Joseph LeDoux explains that the brain’s limbic system (thalamus, amygdala and hippocampus) reacts to information by interpreting sensory organ impulses sent by the thalamus to produce an emotion in the amygdala, and that perceptions (thalamus) and emotional responses (amygdala) always occur first, followed by judgments of like or dislike formed in the hippocampus.[71]⁷¹ LeDoux adds that the limbic system generates emotional memories which make it easier for humans to categorize and remember information.[72]⁷²

The amygdala also receives highly analyzed input from all the sensory cortices, to include visual input from the inferior temporal cortex, which appear to supply the amygdala with highly analyzed signals that can be given emotional significance.[73]⁷³ The interactive graphics and video created by the multimedia players to produce the three-dimensional virtual worlds of the serious games stimulate and send signals to the inferior temporal cortex. These visual signals are therefore given emotional significance, which aids in committing the lessons learned while experiencing the multimedia output to memory.

In addition to receiving information, the amygdala also sends information back to the sensory cortices, known as backprojections.[74]⁷⁴ Through backprojections to the sensory cortex, the amygdala could activate emotional memories or direct attention to simuli that are relevant to the current emotional and motivational state.[75]⁷⁵ Another type of backprojections passes through the basal forebrain and may be involved in the formation of emotional memories by enhancing the learning in emotional situations.[76]⁷⁶ Experiments have shown that the formation of sensory categories in auditory cortex can be controlled by the amygdala, which may be stimulated by the multimedia audio output of the game.[77]⁷⁷

Players may compete and/or collaborate in the serious games with other players when the games take the form of MMOGs, or massively multiplayer online games. When playing in multi-player games, cognitive processes and learning objectives may be distributed across the players in the group, a process referred to as distributed cognition. As Lave asserted, social interaction and collaboration are essential components of situated learning as learners become involved in a “community practice.”[78]⁷⁸

Zhang and Patel state that, “people’s intelligent behavior results from interactions with external cognitive artifacts and with other people, and people’s activities in concrete situations are guided, constrained, and to some extent, determined by the physical, cultural, and social contexts in which they are situated.” The serious games and the digital artifacts they are played on bring learners together and fabricate the situations and context in which players interact and collectively exercise their cognitive skills. The players’ actions and input are shared amongst the group in entertaining virtual environments, promoting emotional, situated learning.

The competition of gameplay, either player against player or the cooperation of players against the game, follow the principles of the “cognitive niche,” as described by Steven Pinker. The theory of the cognitive niche is that “in any ecosystem, the possibility exists for an organism to overtake other organisms’ fixed defenses by cause-and-effect reasoning and cooperative action – to deploy information and inference, rather than particular features of physics and chemistry, to extract resources from other organisms in opposition to their adaptions to protect those resources.”[79]⁷⁹ The goal of any game is to win. In serious games, the context represents the ecosystem in which players use information and inference to overcome the defenses of opposing players or the game itself. Through cooperative action, players struggle to survive the gameplay using their collective knowledge. In cooperative games, this struggle fosters learning not only of the lesson objectives of the game, but develops vital teamwork skills required for success in the real world.

Players learn while playing the game and interacting with other players. However, to reinforce lessons learned, players need to reflect on the gameplay. Two techniques which may be employed by the serious game architecture to assist in the reinforcement of learning objectives are debriefing and coaching. Debriefing occurs when the learner reflects on their performance with an instructor or other learners in order to analyze their performance and generalize that performance to the real world.[80]⁸⁰ Debriefing can be accomplished outside the game, after the game, or be part of the game.[81]⁸¹ Coaching typically occurs while the game is in progress, and just as with debriefing, coaching can be oral or written and performed by an instructor and/or other learners.[82]⁸² Coaching can be very prominent at the beginning of the game and scaled back as the learner progresses or needs to learn how to be autonomous.[83]⁸³ Social media also provide effective platforms for debriefing and coaching to transpire.

Conclusion

Educational computer games cannot replace traditional methods of learning. However, the effectiveness of educational computer games cannot be denied as numerous studies have been conducted affirming the success these games have had with supplementing other mediums such as textbooks, classroom instruction, and practical exercises. Educational computer games capture the imagination of learners, keep their attentions engaged, and motivate learners with the elements of fun and challenge. While playing educational computer games, learners experience emotional responses as they personally connect with the characters and narratives, stimulating the brain’s limbic system which enhances the memory of the experience. While playing multiplayer games, the cognitive processes and learning objectives of the game may be distributed across the players in the group as social and cultural influences enrich the overall learning experience.

Serious games are educational computer games which place players in roles and situations where they are forced to exercise strategizing, hypothesis testing, or problem-solving skills for the purpose of exploring interpersonal development and cognitive processes to better enable them to manage challenges. Although serious games have attracted a great deal of popularity, many in commercial industries may be skeptical about embracing serious games as a vehicle to advance professional development within their ranks as a result of poor performance with some educational computer games. However, the lackluster performance of some games should not an indictment of the conception of serious games. These poorly performing games are generally the outcome of ineffectual design. If serious games follow the architectural design outlined in this paper, the prospective of positive results will be much greater.

Hollan, Hutchins, and Kirsh commented, “For human-computer interaction to advance in the new millennium we need to better understand the emerging dynamic of interaction in which the focus task is no longer confined to the desktop but reaches into a complex networked world of information and computer-mediated interactions. A central image for us is that of future work environments in which people pursue their goals in collaboration with elements of the social and material world. We think that to accomplish this will require a new theoretical basis and an integrated framework for research.”[84]⁸⁴ Serious games embody the instrument to advance HCI in future work environments and provide a catalyst to advance technology which will help people pursue their professional goals in collaboration with the social and material world.

Therefore, commercial industry would be well served to invest more heavily in the development and advancement of serious games in their respective fields to not only further the professional development of their employees and better prepare them to deal with challenging situations, but to better connect their people with the social and material world through more efficient HCI. The leaders of industry will learn from serious games as well as their employees as players of serious games experiment and develop new solutions, techniques, and protocols to existing and emerging problem sets these industries face. With the resources these industries will save on traditional training programs and the value they will gain with a better prepared and more competent workforce, investing in serious games will pay great dividends in the end.

Endnotes
[1] (Dondlinger, 2007)

[2] (Goasduff & Pettey, 2011)

[3] (Pettey & van der Meulen, 2012)

[4] (Computer and video game sales in the United States from 2000 to 2014 (in billion U.S. dollars), n.d.)

[5] (Derryberry, 2007)

[6] (Zhang & Patel, 2006)

[7] (Zhang & Patel, 2006)

[8] (Zhang & Patel, 2006)

[9] (Manovich, New Media from Borges to HTML, 2013, p. 16)

[10] (Manovich, 2013, p. 176)

[11] (Charsky, 2010)

[12] (Manovich, 2013, p. 167)

[13] (Raybourn, 2014)

[14] (Raybourn, 2014)

[15] (Brundtland, 1987)

[16] (Katsaliaki, 2013)

[17] (Dondlinger, 2007)

[18] (Landers, 2014)

[29] (Landers, 2014)

[20] (Landers, 2014)

[21] (Van Eck, 2006)

[22] (Charsky, 2010)

[23] (Lave, n.d.)

[24] (Lave, n.d.)

[25] (Charsky, 2010)

[26] (Dondlinger, 2007)

[27] (Denis & Jouvelot, 2005)

[28] (Dondlinger, 2007)

[29] (Jenkins, 2006)

[30] (Raybourn, 2014)

[31] (Rolfe, 2013)

[32] (Rolfe, 2013)

[33] (Charsky, 2010)

[34] (Charsky, 2010)

[35] (Charsky, 2010)

[36] (Charsky, 2010)

[37] (Dickey, 2005, p. 2)

[38] (Charsky, 2010)

[39] (Charsky, 2010)

[40] (Malone & Lepper, 1987)

[41] (Charsky, 2010)

[42] (Dondlinger, 2007)

[43] (Swartout & van Lent, 2003)

[44] (Swartout & van Lent, 2003)

[45] (Charsky, 2010)

[46] (Hannafin & Peck, 1988)

[47] (Swartout & van Lent, 2003, p. 34)

[48] (Dondlinger, 2007)

[49] (Dondlinger, 2007)

[50] (Swartout & van Lent, 2003, p. 34)

[51] (Salzman, Loftin, Dede, & McGlynn, 1996, p. 2)

[52] (Murray, 2011, p. 51)

[53] (Charsky, 2010)

[54] (Charsky, 2010)

[55] (Deacon, 1997, p. 70)

[56] (Debray & Rauth, 2004)

[57] (Debray & Rauth, 2004)

[58] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 20)

[59] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 30)

[60] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 50)

[61] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 52)

[62] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 76)

[63] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 104)

[64] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 122)

[65] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 130)

[66] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 136)

[67] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 154)

[68] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 164)

[69] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 202)

[70] (Raybourn, 2014)

[71] (LeDoux, 1996)

[72] (LeDoux, 1996)

[73] (Balkenius & Moren, 2001)

[74] (Balkenius & Moren, 2001)

[75] (Balkenius & Moren, 2001)

[76] (Weinberger, Retuning the Brain by Fear Conditioning, 1995) (Weinberger, Tuning the Brain by Learning and by Stimulation of Nucleus Basalis, 1998)

[77] (Weinberger, Retuning the Brain by Fear Conditioning, 1995)

[78] (Lave, n.d.)

[79] (Pinker, 2010, pp. 8993-8994)

[80] (Charsky, 2010)

[81] (Peters & Vissers, 2004)

[82] (Charsky, 2010)

[83] (Charsky, 2010)

[84] (Hollan, Hutchins, & Kirsh, 2000)

Balkenius, C., & Moren, J. (2001). Emotional Learning:  A Computational Model of the Amygdala. Cybernetics and Systems:  An International Journal, 32, 611–636.

Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future (pp. 8–9). New York: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

Charsky, D. (2010). From Edutainment to Serious Games:  A Change in the Use of Game Characteristics. Games and Culture, 5(2), 177–198.

Deacon, T. W. (1997). The Symbolic Species. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Debray, R. (2004). Transmitting Culture. (E. Rauth, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.

Denis, G., & Jouvelot, P. (2005). Motivation-Driven Educational Game Design:  Applying Best Practices to Music Education. Paper presented at the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, Valencia, Spain.

Derryberry, A. (2007). Serious Games:  Online Games for Learning. Adobe Systems Incorporated. Retrieved from http://www.adobe.com/resources/elearning/pdfs/serious_games_wp.pdf

Dickey, M. D. (2005). Three-Dimensional Virtual Worlds and Distance Learning: Two Case Studies of  Active Worlds as a Medium for Distance Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 439–451.

Dondlinger, M. J. (2007). Educational Video Game Design: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Applied Educational Technology, 4(1), 21–31.

Goasduff, L., & Pettey, C. (2011, April 12). Gartner Says By 2015, More Than 50 Percent of Organizations That Manage Innovation Processes Will Gamify Those Processes. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1629214

Hannafin, M. J., & Peck, K. (1988). The Design, Development and Evaluation of Instructional Software. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed Cognition: Toward a New Foundation for Human-Computer Interaction Research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(2), 174–196.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/273258/us-computer-and-video-game-sales/. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/statistics/273258/us-computer-and-video-game-sales/

Katsaliaki, K. (2013). Serious Games for Sustainable Development. Journal of Management Education, 37(6), 889–894.

Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a Theory of Gamified Learning: Linking Serious Games and Gamification of Learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 752–768.

Lave, J. (n.d.). Situated Learning Theory (Lave). Retrieved from http://www.learning-theories.com/situated-learning-theory-lave.html

LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. New York: Simon & Shuster.

Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2003). Universal Principals of Design. Gloucester, MA: Rockport Publishers, Inc.

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making Learning Fun:  A Taxonomy of Intrinsic Motivations for Learning. In Aptitude, Learning and Instruction III:  Cognative and Affective Process Analysis (pp. 223–253). Hilsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Manovich, L. (2013a). New Media from Borges to HTML. In The New Media Reader (pp. 16–25). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Manovich, L. (2013b). Software Take Command (Vol. 5). New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, Inc.

Murray, J. H. (2011). Inventing the Medium:  Principals of Interaction Design as a Cultural Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Peters, V., & Vissers, G. (n.d.). A Simple Classification Model for Debriefing Simulation Games. Simulation & Gaming, 35, 70–84.

Pettey, C., & van der Meulen, R. (2012, November 27). Gartner Says by 2014, 80 Percent of Current Gamified Applications Will Fail to Meet Business Objectives Primarily Due to Poor Design. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2251015

Pinker, S. (2010). The Cognitive Niche: Coevolution of Intelligence, Sociality, and Language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 107(2), 8993–8999.

Raybourn, E. M. (2014). A new paradigm for serious games: Transmedia learning for more effective training and education. Journal of Computational Science, 5(3), 471–481. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2013.08.005

Rolfe, A. (2013, November 15). Human Dimension Modeling:  Extracting Gamesmanship from Serious Games. Retrieved from http://div46amplifier.com/2013/11/15/human-dimension-modeling-extracting-gamesmanship-from-serious-games/

Salzman, M. C., Loftin, R. B., Dede, C., & McGlynn, D. (1996). ScienceSpace:  Lessons for Designing Immersive Virtual Realities. Vancouver, B.C.: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems:  Common Ground.

Swartout, W., & van Lent, M. (n.d.). Making a Game of System Design. Communications of the ACM, 46(7), 32–39.

Van Eck, R. (2006, January 1). Digital Game-Based Learning: It’s Not Just the Digital Natives Who Are Restless. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/digital-game-based-learning-its-not-just-digital-natives-who-are-restless

Weinberger, N. M. (1995). Retuning the Brain by Fear Conditioning. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences (pp. 1071–1089). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Weinberger, N. M. (1998). Tuning the Brain by Learning and by Stimulation of Nucleus Basalis. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9(2), 271–273.

Zhang, J., & Patel, V. L. (2006). Distributed Cognition, Representation, and Affordance. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 333–341.