Toward a Mid-Range Design Theory for Developing Pedagogically Effective Serious Games

Figures & data

Table 1. Meta-requirements.

Meta-requirement 1	The SG should enable a learning experience that is in line with our knowledge of how learning unfolds.
Meta-requirement 2	The SG should consist of different game elements that are best suited to achieve intended learning outcomes.
Meta-requirement 3	The SG should provide a pleasant user experience that allows players to focus on and enjoy playing it.

Table 2. Kernel theories.

Theoretical foundations	Theory description and usage in the development of our design theory
Experiential learning theory (ELT)	ELT was developed by Kolb (1984). It defines learning as the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience, and it is frequently associated with SG-induced learning, although this connection is underexplored. We have used the six characteristics of ELT in order to develop design requirements and design principles for SG design.
Theory of multiple foci of intelligence	The theory of multiple foci of intelligence, developed by Sternberg and Detterman (1986), offers a theoretical perspective on intelligence that incorporates four complementary dimensions that make up an individual’s intelligence: meta-cognitive intelligence, cognitive intelligence, motivational intelligence, and behavioral intelligence. We used this theory in combination with ELT in order to relate existing game components to the learning outcomes of an SG.
Flow theory	Proposed by Csikszentmihalyi (1990), flow theory describes a subjective state or experience in which individuals are fully focused on and enjoy pursuing an activity. As such, research suggests that flow constitutes an important indicator for the quality of an SG’s user experience (Kiili et al., 2012), which is why we incorporated flow theory in order to account for the user experience when developing SGs.

Figure 1. Blueprint of our design theory.

Note. SG = serious game, DP = design principle

Table 3. Matching intelligence types to game elements.

	Cognitive Intelligence	Meta-cognitive Intelligence	Motivational Intelligence	Behavioral Intelligence
Game Components	Feedback (Locations) (Non-Player Characters) (Objects) (Player Characters/Avatars) Quests/Tasks Rules (Turns)	Feedback (Locations) (Non-Player Characters) (Objects) (Player Characters/Avatars) Quests/Tasks Rules (Turns)	(Cut Scenes) (Locations) Feedback Non-Player Characters Player Characters/Avatars Quests/Tasks Rewards Story	Feedback Locations (Non-Player Characters) (Objects) Player Characters/Avatars Quests/Tasks Rules (Turns)
Game Mechanics	Choices: Strategic or Tactical Puzzles Resource Acquisition Resource Management Transactions	Choices: Strategic or Tactical Design/Create/Edit Puzzles Resource Acquisition Resource Management Selecting/Collecting/Finding Transactions	Choices: Expressive (Competition) (Communication) (Cooperation) Design/Create/Edit Quick Time Events Role-Playing	Choices: Expressive, Strategic or Tactical (Cooperation) Communication Movement Quick Time Events Resource Management Role-Playing Transactions
Game Dynamics	Constraints	Constraints Narrative Development	Narrative Development (Relationships)	Relationships

Note. The game elements in brackets are found less frequently in SGs aiming to develop a particular intelligence dimension, or they require a specific game genre. For example, turns are only relevant in turn-based games (e.g., where one player makes a decision and only thereafter can another player make a decision), albeit these are not the only type of game that can successfully develop cognitive intelligence.

Table 4. Implementation principles.

Implementation Principle	Description
Implementation principle 1: Different levels of experience	There are various ways through which a game can adapt to different levels of player experience. For example, game analytics can help adjust the difficulty of a game (Ninaus & Nebel, 2021), which can be realized with the help of established approaches focusing on data-driven difficulty adaptation (Peirce et al., 2008). This could be done, for example, by including a test at the beginning of the game, measuring the proficiency of the player in a given intelligence dimension, and then adapting the game’s difficulty (e.g., limited time to answer questions, more difficult questions) according to these test results. Other measures to evaluate the player’s proficiency and experience include analyzing their affective state during gameplay and then adapting game mechanics (e.g., speed) accordingly (Steinrücke et al., 2019). This has also been described as ‘emotional adaptivity’ and can be assessed by using self-reported or physiology-based data (Tijs et al., 2008).
Implementation principle 2: Learning outcomes	It is important to clarify what exactly players can expect to learn when playing an SG, and this should also be reflected in the SG’s goals (Kiili et al., 2012). For example, game developers might integrate a quest or a task window that players can access in order to find out which tasks they have to fulfill, where they are at in the game, and also how these tasks are related to the learning outcomes. In addition, the game should be clear as to what exactly the player has to do and how to play it. For example, in a lot of story-driven games (e.g., Telltale Games), players employ the perspective of a character and have to decide how to act in different situations. This can mean either making decisions on behalf of that character (incorporating the character’s personality or values into the decision-making) or acting as if they were the characters themselves (decisions based on personal preferences). While both of these alternatives sound similar, note that they train different facets of meta-cognitive intelligence, in that the former requires developing awareness about other people (e.g., through observing and listening to the character) while the latter contributes to self-awareness (e.g., How do I want the player character to behave? What are my personal preferences?).
Implementation principle 3: Game components	When integrating different game components, ensure to carefully reflect about whether or not it is necessary to integrate them. As a rule of thumb, SG developers should only integrate game components that have a concrete benefit, as, otherwise, the game might be overloaded with components that ultimately confuse players (e.g., confusion about which ones are important to pay attention to). Questions that might help to find out whether or not game components are important include, for example: Is a specific non-player character essential for the game’s narrative or the tasks that a player needs to fulfill? Is there enough feedback or too little? Does this game really need objects that a player can interact with, or does this simply distract players from reaching the actual objectives in the SG? In addition, some SGs might require a lot of different game components. In these cases, a handbook might help players maintain an overview thereof, which is particularly important at the beginning of an SG, when players are not yet familiar with all the game components.
Implementation principle 4: Game mechanics	Game mechanics represent the game elements that connect the game to the players and through which the latter can change the state of the game world (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). As such, they should be tested extensively, so that players have a good experience playing the game. Similar to the game components—they should not be included arbitrarily. For example, a lot of adventure games require players to find hidden objects in order to advance the narrative or in order to unlock a location that was previously closed. While this game mechanic might be entertaining for some players, others might find it tedious and boring. Thus, if such a game mechanic is included, it should be linked to the learning outcomes of the SG (Kiili et al., 2012) and tested with players as well. In addition, in order to familiarize players with the different game mechanics, the game should include a tutorial at the beginning of the game that allows players to get to know these mechanics and experiment with them.
Implementation principle 5: Game dynamics	The SG should be dynamic, so that players find it interesting and not too repetitive. Thus, an SG should be able to evoke different emotions (curiosity and joy), have challenges and puzzles that differ from each other, allow dynamic interactions with other players, or include a narrative with twists. While trying to enable dynamic gameplay experiences in different areas might be very costly (e.g., a narrative has to be written, different puzzles have to be designed and coded), SG developers should prioritize dynamics according to the learning outcomes (design principle 3) in order to not exceed the budget, which can happen quite easily in complex SG development projects.

Table 5. Components of the developed design theory.

Component	Description
1) Purpose and scope	The scope of the proposed design theory is to provide design knowledge for the development of serious games that effectively achieve intended learning outcomes.
2) Constructs	Learning outcomes, game components, game mechanics, game dynamics
3) Principle of form and function	The means of designing a serious game that is pedagogically effective is visualized in a blueprint and explained with the help of seven design principles.
4) Artifact mutability	The artifacts are likely to change over time, due to user feedback, and across contexts, due to different requirements of target groups (e.g., age or gender) and peculiarities of platforms (e.g., mobile gaming vs. virtual reality gaming).
5) Testable propositions	Proposition 1: An SG that is designed based on the proposed design theory will achieve its intended learning outcomes and contribute to cognitive, meta-cognitive, motivational, and/or behavioral intelligence development in players. Proposition 2: An SG that is designed based on the proposed design theory will enable players to experience flow while playing the SG.
6) Justificatory knowledge	Experiential learning theory, theory of multiple foci of intelligence, and flow theory helped deduce the design requirements.
7) Principles of implementation	Five principles of implementation are defined regarding (i) SG adaptivity, (ii) learning outcomes, (iii) game components, (iv) game mechanics, and (v) game dynamics.
8) Expository instantiation	Development and evaluation of a cultural learning game

Figure 2. SG interface.

Table 6. Degree of enjoyment when playing the game.

Enjoyment	Frequency (n = 73)	Exemplary Statements
High	n = 53 (73%)	‘To me, playing the game was a really enjoyable experience’.
Mediocre	n = 15 (20%)	‘In general, I did enjoy playing the game, because of four main reasons’.
Low	n = 5 (7%)	‘I found the game enjoyable to a certain extent’.

Table 7. Degree of attention when playing the game.

Attention	Frequency (n = 73)	Exemplary Statements
High	n = 35 (48%)	‘Another thing I really liked about the game was how it captured my attention for the whole hour…’
Mediocre	n = 32 (44%)	‘ … I’d say I was focused for 85% of the time’.
Low	n = 6 (8%)	‘My level of attention throughout the game could be pictured as a rollercoaster. In the morning, I found myself extremely focused, but I would gradually lose my concentration throughout the day’.

Table 8. Frequency of reported learning outcomes (n = 73).

CQ Dimensions	Degree of Improvement
	Improved	Somewhat improved	Not improved		Not mentioned
Cognitive	63 (86%)	8 (11%)	0 (0%)	2 (3%)
Meta-cognitive	55 (75%)	1 (1%)	0 (0%)	17 (24%)
Behavioral	32 (44%)	5 (7%)	8 (11%)	28 (38%)
Motivational	17 (24%)	4 (5%)	24 (33%)	28 (38%)

Table

Name	Description	Learning theoretical foundation	Integration of learning theory	Integration of learning objectives	Reference
Four-Dimensional Framework for GBL	Design framework (DF) is based on learner specifics, pedagogy, representation and context	Situated learning theory Constructivism Instructivism	Learning theories are briefly mentioned, but not explicitly related to the design process	Mentions targeted learning outcomes as being important	De Freitas (2006)
EMERGO	Methodology is based on ADDIE and specifies five phases for SG design (e.g. case idea or case scenario)	No learning theory mentioned	No integration of learning theory	Can be used for developing complex cognitive skills	Nadolski et al. (2008)
Framework for Reducing Design Complexity	DF aims to reduce design complexity at technical, conceptual and practical level	No learning theory mentioned	No integration of learning theory	Mentioned, but not explicitly integrated in the framework	Westera et al. (2008)
Educational Games Design Model	Model introduces game design, pedagogy and learning content modelling as primary elements for SG design	No learning theory mentioned	No integration of learning theory	Integrates Bloom’s taxonomy of learning outcomes	Ibrahim and Jaafar(2009)
Design, Play and Experience Framework	Multi-layered DF involving learning, storytelling, game play, user experience, and technology components	No learning theory mentioned	No integration of learning theory	Integrates Bloom’s taxonomy of learning outcomes	Winn (2009)
Six “I’s” of Game Design	Approach introduces six different nested elements for SG design such as identity, immersion, or interactivity	Cognitive information-processing Self-regulated learning Problem-based learning Experiential learning	Learning theories are reviewed but the author does not explicitly relate the learning theories to the design process	Not explicitly discussed	Annetta (2010)
P-iii Framework	DF introduces an iterative design process involving concept design, game design and game development	No learning theory mentioned	No integration of learning theory	Not explicitly discussed	Abeele et al. (2011)
Six Facets of Serious Game Design	Description of various design patterns related to six facets of SG design (e.g. pedagogical objectives)	No learning theory mentioned	No integration of learning theory	Learning objectives are part of pedagogical objectives	Marne et al. (2012)
Triadic Framework for SG Design	Design framework (DF) is based upon play, pedagogy and fidelity as core design principles	Situated learning theory Problem based learning theory Experiential learning theory	Learning theories are reviewed but the author does not explicitly relate the learning theories to the design process	Not explicitly discussed	Rooney (2012)
New Methodology of SG Design	Methodology outlines how different levels and learning mechanisms (e.g. quizzes) can be integrated in an SG	No learning theory mentioned	No integration of learning theory	Not explicitly discussed	Barbosa et al. (2014)
GAMED	Approach describes a cyclical process for SG design involving multiple phases of game design, testing, evaluating and risk analysis	No learning theory mentioned	No integration of learning theory	Not explicitly discussed	Aslan and Balci (2015)
Activity Theory-based Model of Serious Games	Description of SGs according to their learning activity, gaming activity and instructional activity	No learning theory mentioned	Activity theory is more of a meta-theory rather than a concrete learning theory	High-level educational objectives are discussed	Carvalho et al. (2015)
Gamification Service Framework	DF differentiates between different game activities, such as rules, control, social interaction or feedback	No learning theory mentioned	No integration of learning theory	Not explicitly discussed	Klapztein and Cipolla (2016)
Design Methodology with Graphical Notations	Methodology is based on graphical notations and describes six phases for SG design (e.g. design of chapters or design of scenes)	No learning theory mentioned	No integration of learning theory	Determining learning objectives is part of the first design phase	De Lope et al. (2017)
Generic Game-Based Design Model	Multi-layered design model combines skills with quizzes and game-related attributes	No learning theory mentioned	No integration of learning theory	Not explicitly discussed	El Arroum et al. (2020)

Note. The inclusion of SG design frameworks, models or methodologies is based upon the systematic literature review about approaches to SG design by Ávila-Pesántez et al. (2017) as well as upon additional research for further SG design approaches as some design approaches were missing in the review. In addition, the table only includes generic SG design approaches that can be used for creating games with different learning objectives as well for various genres (e.g. not only role-playing games). As such, SG design approaches for developing SGs for children with auditory impairments (Cano et al., 2016), for example, have not been included.

Table

Game name	Year developed	Mentioned or derived field or discipline of reference	Documentation of Evaluation of Intercultural Competence Dimension				Key reference
			Cognitive	Meta-cognitive	Moti-vational	Beha-vioral
VECTOR	2000s	Intercultural awareness	-	-	-	-	Deaton et al. (2005)
ELECT BiLAT	Presumably late 2000s	Intercultural negotiation	+	-	-	-	e.g. Durlach et al. (2008)
TLCTS	2000s	Intercultural communication	-	-	-	-	Johnson and Valente (2009)
America’s Army	2000s	Intercultural awareness and collaboration	-	-	-	-	Raybourn (2009)
Second China	2007–2008	Intercultural awareness	-	-	-	-	Fishwick et al. (2010)
Icura	2000s	Intercultural knowledge	+	-	+	-	Froschauer et al. (2010)
It’s a deal	2009	Intercultural business communication	+	+	-	(+)	Guillén-Nieto and Aleson-Carbonell (2012)
Argonaut Online	Presumably 2009	Intercultural communication	-	-	-	-	Wiggins (2012)
EU-Topia	Presumably early 2010s	Intercultural awareness	-	+	-	-	El Kechaï and Pierrot (2015)
Oasistan	1999	Intercultural knowledge and awareness	-	-	-	-	de Jong and Warmelink (2017)
CCDTS	Presumably mid 2010s	Intercultural knowledge and awareness	+	+	-	-	An et al. (2019)

Note. When compiling this list, we only selected games that were intentionally designed for the purpose of developing the player’s intercultural competences. This meant that we excluded games that primarily focused on language learning (e.g. Croquelandia) or games that have been developed for another purpose but entail culture-relevant contents (e.g. Darfur is Dying). The table is adapted from de Jong and Warmelink (2017).

Table C1. Matching design requirements and design principles.

Design requirements	Design principles
Design requirement 1: An SG should support players in their individual learning process by accounting for the player’s past experiences as well as by not limiting their capabilities to learn from future experiences.	Design principle 1: For SG designers to develop pedagogically effective SGs, they need to ensure that the SG accounts for different levels of player experience and does not limit the player’s ability to learn after playing the game, as learning represents a continuous process according to experiential learning theory.
Design requirement 2: An SG should have clearly defined learning outcomes, which can be defined with the help of the theory of multiple foci of intelligence.	Design principle 2: For SG designers to develop pedagogically effective SGs, the SG should have clearly defined learning outcomes, which should be achieved by using the theory of multiple foci of intelligence, because research suggests that clearly defining learning outcomes is critical for developing effective SGs.
Design requirement 3: Depending on the exact learning outcomes an SG sets out to achieve, it should enable players to engage the different learning modes accordingly.	Design principle 3: In order for an SG to achieve its learning outcomes, the developer must ensure that the game elements allow players to engage the learning modes that are required to develop specific intelligence dimensions, because experiential learning theory suggests that the type of learning modes in which a player engages influences which capabilities he or she develops.
Design requirement 4: An SG should allow players to adapt to changing circumstances within the game world.	Design principle 4: For SG designers to develop pedagogically effective SGs, the SG should incorporate game dynamics that allow players to adapt to changing circumstances in the game world, because experiential learning theory suggests that learning is a holistic adaptation process that requires learners to constantly adapt to a changing world.
Design requirement 5: An SG should have transactions between the person and the game environment that reciprocally influence each other.	Design principle 5: For SG designers to develop pedagogically effective SGs, game mechanics should have consequences for the game’s dynamics and components, because experiential learning theory suggests that any given action has the ability to change objective conditions. Design principle 6: For SG designers to develop pedagogically effective SGs, the state of the game world (e.g., game components and dynamics) determines the game mechanics that are available to players, because experiential learning theory suggests that objective conditions have a significant effect on the subjective experience and the repertoire of available behaviors.
Design requirement 6: An SG should include game elements that foster the experience of flow.	Design principle 7: For SG designers to improve the likelihood of players experiencing flow while playing an SG, the SG should have clear goals, provide cognitive and immediate feedback, have good playability, an appropriate level of challenge, and engender a sense of control in players, because research suggests these are the antecedents for flow in the context of SGs.

Table D1. Overview of game components.

Game Components	Description
Avatar	You controlled two protagonists
Non-Player Characters	You got to know a diverse set of non-player characters throughout the game
Objects and Items	You could look at various artifacts in the game and also collect some of them
Game World	You explored four different locations
Storyline	You experienced an interactive storyline

Table D2. Overview of game mechanics.

Game Mechanics	Description
Conversations	You had to talk to various non player-characters
Decisions with Consequences	You had to make decisions which affected the reactions of other characters in the game
Insights	You unlocked and read various Insights as you progressed through the game
Terminal Documents	You read various Terminal Documents as you progressed through the game
Puzzles	You had to solve four different Puzzles in order to proceed in the game
Review Screen	At the end of each episode, you could take a look at the overview of decisions you’ve made in that episode

Table E1. Overview categorization scheme for enjoyment/attention.

Code	Description	Expression	Example
Enjoyment	The degree to which players enjoyed playing the game	High	Playing the game was a real source of pleasure and joy.
		Mediocre	In general, I did enjoy playing the game because of four main reasons.
		Low	I found the game enjoyable to a certain extent.
		None	I didn’t enjoy playing the game.
Attention	The degree to which players were able to focus on the game	High	Another thing I really liked about the game was how it captured my attention for the whole hour.
		Mediocre	I was generally quite focused and I think the background music helped.
		Low	My level of attention throughout the game could be pictured as a rollercoaster. In the morning, I found myself extremely focused, but I would gradually lose my concentration throughout the day.
		None	I couldn’t focus on the game at all.

Table E2. Overview categorization scheme for learning outcomes.

Code	Description	Expression	Example
Cognitive CQ	Cognitive CQ reflects general knowledge and knowledge structures about cultures and cultural differences	Improved	It was the first time that I learnt theories about culture and intercultural management. Hence, I established valuable knowledge for my interaction with people from other cultures in my professional and personal life.
		Somewhat Improved	Regarding my knowledge, except some specificities regarding the Russian and Chinese cultures as well as the concept of holocracy, I didn’t learn much.
		Not Improved	I didn’t acquire any new knowledge.
		Not Mentioned	-
Metacognitive CQ	Metacognitive CQ reflects the mental capability to acquire and evaluate cultural knowledge. It focuses on awareness and monitoring of cognitive processes.	Improved	The serious game not only provided valuable examples of tricky situations that I could find myself in when getting involved in a multicultural setting, but it also taught me how to better recognize arising issues and challenges, how to link them to the theories I learned in class, and how to potentially resolve them.
		Somewhat Improved	Then, on the softer and subtler side of learning, come the conversations and the decisions with consequences. This is because they allow the player to think about how they could behave in certain situations based on what the non-playable characters said or how they reacted.
		Not Improved	I didn’t feel that my ability to integrate new knowledge improved.
		Not Mentioned	-
Motivational CQ	Motivational CQ reflects the mental capacity to direct and sustain energy toward functioning and performing in intercultural situations.	Improved	This increased my motivation to interact with people from various countries so I could experience those cultural differences in real-life situations.
		Somewhat Improved	The area I felt improved the least is the motivation to engage with people from other cultures.
		Not Improved	The game also confirmed my genuine interest in learning about other cultures.
		Not Mentioned	-
Behavioral CQ	Behavioral CQ reflects the ability to flex behaviors to fit different cultural contexts.	Improved	I would say that the area I felt improved the most is the behavioral skills in interacting with people from other cultures.
		Somewhat Improved	While the game had a positive impact on my overall behavioral skills, I also feel that in interactions with people from other cultures, it would not be my instinct to think about the learnings from the game.
		Not Improved	Therefore, I distanced myself from taking all nationally depicted cultures in the game for a valid representation and did not allow my prior behavioral skills toward these cultures to change significantly.
		Not Mentioned	-

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (1st ed.). Prentice-Hall.

 Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman, D. K. (1986). What is intelligence?: Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition. Praeger Pub Text.

 Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.

 Google Scholar

Kiili, K., de Freitas, S., Arnab, S., & Lainema, T. (2012). The design principles for flow experience in educational games. Procedia Computer Science, 15, 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2012.10.060

 Google Scholar

Ninaus, M., & Nebel, S. (2021). A systematic literature review of analytics for adaptivity within educational video games. Frontiers in Education, 5, 611072. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.611072

 Google Scholar

Peirce, N., Conlan, O., & Wade, V. (2008). Adaptive educational games: Providing non-invasive personalised learning experiences. In M. Eisenberg, Kinshuk, M. Chang, & R. McGreal (Eds.), 2008 second IEEE international conference on digital game and intelligent toy enhanced learning, Banff, Canada.

 Google Scholar

Steinrücke, J., Veldkamp, B. P., & De Jong, T. (2019). Determining the effect of stress on analytical skills performance in digital decision games towards an unobtrusive measure of experienced stress in gameplay scenarios. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.014

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tijs, T., Brokken, D., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2008). Creating an emotionally adaptive game. In S. M. Stevens & S. J. Saldamarco (Eds.), Entertainment Computing-ICEC 2008: 7th International Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.

 Google Scholar

Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business (Vol. 1). Wharton Digital Press Philadelphia.

 Google Scholar

De Freitas, S. (2006). Learning in immersive worlds: A review of game-based learning. M. University.

 Google Scholar

Nadolski, R., Hummel, H., Van den Brink, H., Hoefakker, R., Slootmaker, A., Kurvers, H., & Storm, J. (2008). Emergo: Methodology and toolkit for efficient development of serious games in higher education. Simulations & Gaming, 39(3), 338–352.

 Google Scholar

Westera, W., Nadolski, R. J., Hummel, H. G., & Wopereis, I. G. (2008). Serious games for higher education: A framework for reducing design complexity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(5), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00279.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ibrahim, R., & Jaafar, A. (2009). Educational games (EG) design framework: Combination of game design, pedagogy and content modeling. In M. J. Nordin, K. Jumari, & Suwarno (Eds.), 2009 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, Bangi, Malaysia.

 Google Scholar

Winn, B. M. (2009). The design, play, and experience framework. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (pp. 1010–1024). IGI Global.

 Google Scholar

Annetta, L. A. (2010). The “I’s” have it: A framework for serious educational game design. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018985

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Abeele, V. V., Schutter, B. D., Geurts, L., Desmet, S., Wauters, J., Husson, J., Audenaeren, L. V. D., Broeckhoven, F. V., Annema, J.-H., & Geerts, D. (2011). P-iii: A player-centered, iterative, interdisciplinary and integrated framework for serious game design and development. In. S. Wannemacker, S. Vandercruysse, & G. Clarebout (Eds.), Joint Conference of the Interdisciplinary Research Group on Technology, Education, and Communication, and the Scientific Network on Critical Flexible Thinking, Ghent, Belgium.

 Google Scholar

Marne, B., Wisdom, J., Huynh-Kim-Bang, B., & Labat, J.-M. (2012). The six facets of serious game design: A methodology enhanced by our design pattern library. In A. Ravenscroft, S. Leindstaedt, C. D. Kloos, & D. Hernández-Leo (Eds.), European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, Saarbrücken, Germany.

 Google Scholar

Rooney, P. (2012). A theoretical framework for serious game design. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 2(4), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2012100103

 Google Scholar

Barbosa, A. F., Pereira, P. N., Dias, J. A., & Silva, F. G. (2014). A new methodology of design and development of serious games. International Journal of Computer Games Technology, 2014(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/817167

 Google Scholar

Aslan, S., & Balci, O. (2015). Gamed: Digital educational game development methodology. Simulation, 91(4), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0037549715572673

 Google Scholar

Carvalho, M. B., Bellotti, F., Berta, R., De Gloria, A., Sedano, C. I., Hauge, J. B., Hu, J., & Rauterberg, M. (2015). An activity theory-based model for serious games analysis and conceptual design. Computers & Education, 87, 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.023

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Klapztein, S., & Cipolla, C. (2016). From game design to service design: A framework to gamify services. Simulation & Gaming, 47(5), 566–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687811664186

 Google Scholar

De Lope, R. P., Arcos, J. R. L., Medina-Medina, N., Paderewski, P., & Gutiérrez-Vela, F. (2017). Design methodology for educational games based on graphical notations: Designing Urano. Entertainment Computing, 18, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2016.08.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

El Arroum, F.-Z., Hanoune, M., & Zidoun, Y. (2020). Serious game design: Presenting a new generic creative reflection framework. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 15(19), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i19.15603

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ávila-Pesántez, D., Rivera, L. A., & Alban, M. S. (2017). Approaches for serious game design: A systematic literature review. The ASEE Computers in Education (CoED) Journal, 8(3), 1–11.

 Google Scholar

Cano, S., Arteaga, J. M., Collazos, C. A., Gonzalez, C. S., & Zapata, S. (2016). Toward a methodology for serious games design for children with auditory impairments. IEEE Latin America Transactions, 14(5), 2511–2521. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLA.2016.7530453

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Deaton, J. E., Barba, C., Santarelli, T., Rosenzweig, L., Souders, V., McCollum, C., Seip, J., Knerr, B. W., & Singer, M. J. (2005). Virtual environment cultural training for operational readiness (VECTOR). Virtual Reality, 8(3), 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-004-0145-x

 Google Scholar

Durlach, P. J., Wansbury, T. G., & Wilkinson, J. G. (2008). Cultural awareness and negotiation skills training: Evaluation of a prototype semi-immersive system. In J. A. Parmentola & D. Szkrybalo (Eds.), 26th Army Science Conference, Orlando, FL.

 Google Scholar

Johnson, W. L., & Valente, A. (2009). Tactical language and culture training systems: Using AI to teach foreign languages and cultures. AI Magazine, 30(2), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v30i2.2240

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Raybourn, E. M. (2009). Intercultural competence game that fosters metacognitive agility and reflection. In A. A. Ozok & P. Zaphiris (Eds.), Online communities and social computing (Vol. 5621, pp. 603–612). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02774-1_65

 Google Scholar

Fishwick, P. A., Coffrey, A. J., Kamhai, R., & Henderson, J. (2010). An experimental design and preliminary results for a cultural training system simulation. In B. Johansson, S. Jain, J. Montoya-Torres, & E. Yücesan (Eds.), Winter Simulation Conference, Baltimore, MA.

 Google Scholar

Froschauer, J., Seidel, I., Gärtner, M., Berger, H., & Merkl, D. (2010, October 20–23). Design and evaluation of a serious game for immersive cultural training. In N. Henze, P. Woźniak, K. Väänänen, J. Williamson, & S. Schneegass (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, VSMM, Seoul, South Korea.

 Google Scholar

Guillén-Nieto, V., & Aleson-Carbonell, M. (2012). Serious games and learning effectiveness: The case of it’s a deal!. Computers & Education, 58(1), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.015

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wiggins, B. E. (2012). Toward a model for intercultural communication in simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 43(4), 550–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878111414486

 Google Scholar

El Kechaï, H., & Pierrot, L. (2015). Participatory design in EU-TOPIA: A serious game for intercultural competences during work mobility. In D. G. Sampson, R. Huang, G.-J. Hwang, T.-C. Liu, N.-S. Chen, Kinshuk, & C.-C. Tsai (Eds.), 2015 IEEE 15th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Hualien, Taiwan.

 Google Scholar

de Jong, M., & Warmelink, H. (2017). Oasistan: An intercultural role-playing simulation game to recognize cultural dimensions. Simulation & Gaming, 48(2), 178–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878117691076

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

An, B., Brown, D., & Guerlain, S. (2019). The evaluation of a serious game to improve cross-cultural competence. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12(3), 429–441. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2018.2865411

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar