ALTERNATE REALITY GAME IN MUSEUM: A PROCESS TO

CONSTRUCT EXPERIENCES AND NARRATIVES IN HYBRID

CONTEXT
Paula Carolei1, Eliane Schlemmer2
1
2

UNIFESP (BRAZIL)
UNISINOS (BRAZIL)

Abstract
This paper describes and discusses the design and execution of an Alternate Reality Game (ARG)
with 183 children and adolescents which has happened during an event about games within a
Museum of Science and Technology.
The organization and the development of the event and the creation of ARG "Ghosts in the Museum"
involved a group of fifteen teenagers supported by teachers and researchers. The creation of the ARG
demanded the development of an application (App) for mobile devices, using mixed reality and
augmented reality elements. So the ARG was a pervasive and ubiquitous process in which a fictional
narrative instigated and supported the complex exploration of a physical space. The initial narrative
and the application promoted a "hunt the clues" activity related to specific experiments in the museum.
The tracks of gamification process were guided by specific markers that, when scanned by the
application, conjured up a ghost (Albert Einstein's 3D model) which presented the narrative and his
quests about the experiments to start the challenge. Then the app invited the participants to deepen
their explanation of the phenomenon observed in the museum experiences and, in the end, register
their own scientific explanation. This project is a exploratory research with a qualitative approach,
using mapping controversies as methodology and we choose many instruments to collect data as: the
scripts generated by the group (design of narrative and the script of the app), online forms used to
describe the profiles of the participants, observation, notes and records in photo, digital audio and
video made by monitors, researchers and teachers who followed the groups of participating children
and the application logs that stored the responses of participants for automated questions and the
input text / image and / or sound asked for the end of each quest. The experiment produced important
results about the design and management of the creative process, considering adolescents as
protagonists of these processes as the relationship between teams formed of different kind of people.
Our main focus was how they made themselves the construction of narratives from concepts and
experiences presented in the Science Museum and how they were transformed into narratives and
challenges in this creative process. The main result is a description of a process of identifying and
negotiating differences in the design of the game, in which we found four types of process narratives:
historical narratives, invented narratives, negotiated stories and experience narratives; then we
described each process. The experience was analyzed by immersion and enaction concepts, we
studied the involvement of human and non-human actors (Actor-Network Theory) and the elements of
hybrid narratives. This experience is relevant to disclose and explain a creative process in which the
gamification and the process of creating collaborative and hybrid narratives can enhance the
experience in museums and science education.
Keywords: Gamification, Augmented Reality, Pervasive games, Science Education.

INTRODUCTION

This article describes the process of construction and performance of Alternate Reality Game (ARG)
at the Museum of Sciences, PUC-RS, with children and adolescents during the SBGames Kids &
Teens event 2014. The focus of the analysis of this process in the narratives were created and
experienced by both the creators and organizers and the group of children who participated in both the
production and experiences. This communication is presented in the following parts: previous and
related works, theoretical framework of pervasive games, narrative, description of experience,
controversies mapping (results) and conclusion.

Proceedings of EDULEARN15 Conference

6th-8th July 2015, Barcelona, Spain

8037

ISBN: 978-84-606-8243-1

1.1

Previous and related works

It is important to contextualize this work within a production of diverse and continuous research on the
subject, to show that the group responsible for such action has a meaningful academic history and, of
course, this work is related to previous work of the group itself and researchers.
The group responsible for this research action already has a wide experience of research on virtual
and hybrid environments with innovative proposals and in the past two years have been studying the
aspect of gamification in hybrid and multimodal spaces, with various projects and official financing and
research in networks hosting researchers from other institutions.
One of the participating researchers has great experience in pervasive games in public spaces such
as parks, museums, exhibitions, educational fairs, etc.
In particular on pervasive games in science museums, the gamification process has already been
described as deepening of scientific communication [1]
The Horizon Report Museum edition 2015 [2] shows some examples of gamification in a museum and
presents itself as a trend to amplify the experience of participation, and points as challenges to these
processes the promotion of ways to expand the boundaries of the creative process.
Carmona [3] shows another research proposing the idea of gamification in their own museum in Berlin
as a gamified experience. In this case, the gamification is part of the instructional process and the
museum is not a proposal of disruption from other paths beyond what was proposed by the museum
itself.
It is not difficult to find many reports and research on the creation of ARGs (Alternate Reality Games)
in urban areas, especially festivals like Game for Changes and Come out and Play.
All these previous research inspired our proposal, but a key element was only to promote a new
experience in museum within a game event, doing it with children, for children and their responsibility
and key roles.
The research intends to bring the experience of both researchers and teachers of the research group,
including the various areas of support and collaboration of students (games, literature, journalism,
teaching, communication) but also shows how all this academic experience was challenged and
destabilized by the participation of children.
It was a very big challenge to entrust the responsibility of the event and the game to children and
adolescents, but this proposal was reached only from the needs observed in previous experience that
made us ask ourselves how we had to listen to and give voice to this new generation, including to
broaden the experience of participation and scientific communication.

TEORETICAL REFERENCES

What are pervasive games and how are they expanded from the narrative?
According to Montola & Wearn [4], "pervasive games are a curious form of culture that exists at the
intersection of phenomena such as urban culture, mobile technologies, network communication,
'realistic fiction' and performing arts that combine bits and pieces of various contexts. The ARG
(alternate reality game) is a type of pervasive game which necessarily has a fictional narrative, which
can be also fantastic, but even so, tends to blend in with the real stories to provoke immersion.
Montola & Wearn [5] highlight the idea of pervasive games as games of social expansion and
highlights as their most interesting feature the fact of turning the boundaries between fantasy and
routines a little "blurry" for people to question what is real.
The older players of ARG used an expression that "This is no game," because if the person clearly
knew it was a game, it would lost the magic of the process. Nowadays the ambiguity is more common
than unconsciousness.
For Montola & Wearn [6], there are three stages in relation to ARG: the unconscious, ambiguous and
aware states. The unconscious state happens when the game really merges with everyday events; the
ambiguous is a situation in which there are obvious elements and others, especially of gameplay that
go unnoticed, because they fit into the routine. And the conscious state is when the audience knows
all the time that they are playing a game.

8038

But what is the game? What can we consider part of the game?
McGonigal [7] noticed that every game has goals, rules, feedback system and voluntary participation.
Carmona [8] associated other elements that Mc Gonigal [9] quotes about the experience of playing
(productivity with pleasure, optimism, social relations) and conclude "that gamification is to transform
the tasks to be done in challenges where these four characteristics of players can flourish, motivating
them to go through an experience that shows enough familiarity with the games to motivate the player
to complete it in a pleasant, optimistic way, with an epic sense and surfacing social relationships."
On gamifying a museum, Carmona [10] points out that:
Gamify something so traditional as visiting a museum is to turn it into a unique experience, fun
above all, and also motivating for all age groups, differentiating the experience of just looking at
the exhibits in a museum experience to interact with them, through a narrative, following the
exposure of the rules, analyzing in an immersive and interactive way what there is to see inside
the museum
We recognize the importance of rules, feedback, and social expansion of voluntary participation, but
we believe McGonigal may have been a bit reductive in her definition when she says goals instead of
challenge, which is much more complex and less manipulating. But when the author incorporates the
idea of the epic, she rescues the importance of the symbolic; she demonstrates that it goes beyond
the simple goal as a behavioral objective.
Something pointed out by Montoya [11] and that we consider key in the gamification process is the
immersion. From a reading of Murray [12], Carolei [13] lists three fundamental elements that must be
presented in games or in gamification process: the immersion, the agency and the fun. For immersion,
the author is much more than the sensory aspects of the interfaces, but rather a complex
phenomenon that leads the player to create and stay inside the "magic circle". The author believes
that immersion in the game is related to the fourth psychological functions described by Jung [14]
(Sensation, Thought, Intuition and Feeling). As each player has a different development of these
functions, according to their psychological type, the interaction with the game and immersion will also
vary across people. But if the game at least "touches" these functions, it is more likely to be
immersive.
"Agency", the second characteristic that defines a game [15], is related to what the player does in the
game, that is closely connected to the gameplay.
"Fun", the third characteristic of a game [16] , from its epistemological concept, it would be all that are
diverse for us: a second version of the world or two versions of the same thing. Thinking this way, we
can say that the more we get away from the person of our daily lives, the more we generate an
immersion/fun trance.
But what is the role of narrative in all this?
According to Ryan [17], the digital narrative has four different emphases: practice, metaphorical,
expanded and traditionalist. The practice is a kind of preservation of cultural memory of ordinary
people. The metaphorical rescues both the symbolic potential and the magic of "storytelling" elements.
The expanded narrative is the one that intends to amplify cross-cultural barrier, transmedia, propose
new reconfigurations and traditional narratives that are those who repeat stereotypes, successful
scripts.
Bringing another way of thinking to the imaginary within the narrative, we have to be aware what
stereotypes and successful scripts are when emptied of symbolic content, often used in a direct causal
relationship also to defend argument, in a way to manipulate and sell things from these structures and
which is archetypal, otherwise promotes a deeper experience that access unconscious and polissemic
contents, providing for each person a different kind of experience, and not a pattern repetition that
mechanizes the process.
Our hypothesis is that the construction and experience of the ARG involves different types of
narratives:

Discovered narratives: when we sought and researched narrative elements present in the
history of science museum, the history of scientists. It was a search for facts and history
research of people.

8039

Invented narratives: fictional narratives created from archetypal plots and even more
stereotyped to produce and give direction to the challenges.

Negotiated narratives: as the stories were created, by mixing and negotiating all expectations
and wishes of the creators of the game.

Experienced narratives: how each game participant lived that narrative and the narrative
connected with interactivity. How he entered into the proposal of the ARG and was thrilled.

DESCRIBING THE EXPERIENCE

The ARG was proposed as part of the activities of SBGames 2014 that happened in Porto Alegre,
Brazil. The SB Games is an event, both scientific and commercial, that is affiliated the Brazilian
Computer Society (SBC) and is one of the biggest meeting about games in Brazil. In 2014, this event
presenting a new track called SBGames Kids & Teens where it should be created and managed by
children as protagonists of process in which they would concept the activities, propose and would
analyze proposals for conferences, reports, workshops, game tutorials and even have parents ,
teachers and other children and teenagers as desired public. One of the activities of this program
constructed by the children was called ARG: Ghost in the Museum.
This ARG was experienced by 183 children and adolescents (25 groups) within a Museum of Science
and Technology PUC-RS.
The development of ARG involved the creation of a narrative but also required the development of an
application (App) for mobile devices, using mixed reality and augmented reality elements, as in the
case of the science museum at PUC-RS, The initial narrative as the application promote to "hunt the
clues" that were related to some museum experiments. The tracks were specific markers that, when
scanned by the application, showed up a ghost (Einstein Scientist 3D model) that explained the
narrative challenges. From the challenge, the app invited participants to deepen their explanation of
the phenomenon observed in the museum experience with a trail of decisions and in the end an
INPUT screen showed up asking the players to record their own scientific explanation in format text,
sound and/or picture
These trails had four possible paths: one began with evidence or variable actually related to the
observed phenomenon, the second was a wrong sign, a third had magical explanation and the last
was an alternative to a call for help and when they chose this alternative they received a schematic
representation of the experiment as clue/help. Each chosen track had new issues, if they followed the
clue trail with the right relationship they got faster to the final screen that was an input screen in which
subjects were asked to write, record or produce a photographic record of their personal explanation of
the phenomenon.
The path chosen by the player was registered in the tablet and could be recovered for this research.
Within the ARG production team, we can consider two groups of children, one of them participated
from conception, design and experimentation of the game (seven children of So Leopoldo) who
mostly had some connection with people of the research group and another group that only
participated from the test phase and final experience, precisely because it was from another city (eight
students at a public school in the city of So Paulo). So 15 children comprised all participants in the
development.
It was a long process of collaboration and collective construction involving the group of GPs-DU
UNISINOS research, with various human actors: researchers, students, teachers, pupils and nonhuman actors like devices, museum spaces, applications, etc.
It was a process of over six months to prepare three living days, and six months of analysis. Because
the process produced a lot of data, this article only analyzes the narratives and the entire mapping
controversies from them.
The narrative is key point of the analysis, because it is the valuation that determined our choice for a
pervasive game of the ARG kind (Alternate Reality Game).
The proposal was a game produced by the children, but from an intentional proposal for scientific
communication expansion, so the initial ideas did not come from the students but from a logics of how
they interacted with the museum's experiments, mapped by one of the researchers at the ARG and
every process gamification proposal intended to improve this interaction.

8040

One of the first actions was a group of researchers going to the museum with the leader of the
children, so she explored the museum, interacted and suggested ideas of which experiments should
be part of the game. The researcher who was leading the action of these ARG interactions recorded a
video during the process and an audio recording (post-visit interviews).
From this initial experience, it was mapped:
Some elements of scientific communication: spontaneous concepts, initial interest (sensory),
observation of phenomena, the questions, attempted explanation (hypothesis)
Types of communication present in science museums: exhibition (organized from an inductive
logic and what were the organizational criteria: temporality, spatiality, scale, comparative, etc.);
demonstration of phenomena and experiments; Trial: When the participant can decide what,
how and when to experience; Simulation: When you can control the variables and test
hypotheses; exploration and research: when it adopts a deductive approach, in which it gives
clues and visitors have to conclude something from clues or evidence.
Skills that can be developed in the interaction: observation of phenomena and processes (note
the qualities); questions and comparison of phenomena, and scenario (building relationships),
construction of scientific concepts (theoretical abstraction), modeling (abstraction and
imagination), context (ethical and aesthetic relations and knowledge transfer).
Despite having a researcher and a teenager as mainly responsible for the game, the scripts and the
production of models and applications were discussed at the meetings with all the research group and
even those who are not in So Leopoldo, participated via hang out.S of them, with the participation of
children.
There were thirty-four meetings, most of them recorded with audio recording and three visits with
children to the museum for mapping and testing process. Also the script and application was
presented and tested twice with the children in Sao Paulo. All these meetings were recorded and the
results that we presented are about mapping the controversies of questions about the narrative of
ARG:
How it was suggested, researched and related narratives of the characters of the scientists and
the experiments (Narratives Discoveries)
How fictional narratives and imaginative, archetypal or stereotypical strategies were created
(Narratives Invented)
How the idealized narratives were negotiated, personal desires, imposition of the conclusions
from personal experiences and life stories and established a collaborative process (Narratives
Traded)
How the narrative experience of the participants, did they manage to genuinely experience.
What was proposed? (Experienced Narratives)

RESULTS

The Exploratory research with a qualitative approach was used as a methodology to map and as
instruments: the scripts generated by the group both in script design as in the application construction.
Online questionnaires were also used to describe the profile of the participants.
The theory is not unique and there are several points of view, especially when working with a diverse
group. So we chose to make a controversies mapping (a methodology developed by Bruno Latour) to
detail the creative process and its value, also highlighting and contrast the various viewpoints and
challenges
Acoording to Venturini [18], the controversies mapping described: shared uncertainties, the time of
destabilizing and the fight for power, problems that are "hotter" in the sense of mobilizing the group,
actions and limited observations to facilitate explicitness and the scope.
The main controversies describes here were ellected by the subjects that returned in every meeting
and explained the main points of stress and enchantment during the game design and
experimentation.
All children who participated were filmed and then they were interviewed, and from those records we
chose those which were preferred by children and those that they did not even paid attention to. In

8041

addition, we also accessed the museum's work indicated that data from interviews with users and the
experiments were almost the same.
We listed ten of these experiments and, in a second meeting chose seven. We decided to choose the
top five experiments and the two most refused, just to test if the experiments became more interesting
with the ARG.
Also it was sought in this choice a diversity interaction or scientific information in order to experience
different actions and interactions to be observed if the ARG extended the interaction
The narrative chosen as one of the first group idea was that the museum was working with museum
ghosts, because the elements "discovered" had various stories and pictures of the various scientists.
But when making the application, 3D modeling by seven scientists became unfeasible, then the
children chose only Einstein, which was what they most identified as a scientist.
But how to explain a scientist who asks questions? It was suggested that it was a lost ghost without
memory and asked for help of the participants to remember, than it justified the children had to
explain.
One of the controversies we had was between the researcher who create the pedagogical intention
and the game development team that mostly were students of the game. They didn't want less
experiments and only the most fun and not the logic of working with various skills. And the researcher
argued that her intention was to transform instruction into experience, but its interesting to maintain
the pedagogical goals and competences. We can see this as a common dispute between those who
work with entertainment and education.
Another controversy happened when deciding on the inputs and application feedbakcs. The group of
researchers on education wanted nothing reactive as interaction, then rejected every multiple choice
and only the participant to explain in their own words, but the group of games said the children needed
some faster feedback, so we opted for a four tracks as a decision tree to have some advance
feedback, but this did not prevent sending the file at the end.
Another problem we had was with linear narratives that tied the recording of a sequence and forced to
have a linear path. It was agreed that the roadmap should allow explore the experiments without a
sequence, but the game script writer did it himself and did not share the text with the group in time to
receive suggestions and even inputs, and this was only realized after the voice of animation had
already been recorded and synchronized. So we had to accept the linearity and organized children not
to be all in the same experiment.
Most impasses and disputes were created by power struggle, as people thought "the experts" and
committed serious errors at times for not sharing and not discuss what they did. Few time, the more it
happened and happens in most groups and the great learning is dealing with it.
Another sharp controversy before the process was the attempt to eliminate the educational part as
something that made the game "boring," but some of the educators insisted on the importance of
pedagogical intent, given that the goal was to see how gamification extended the scientific
communication and not just one game to end in itself. It permeated various discussions,
disagreements and comings and goings in the process.
It was also highlighted and insisted that the children would want something dynamic and competitive
and had to have a ranking or measure time. But these exaggerated competitiveness that was not
observed in all children. While some kids really wanted to do faster and finish first, other explored and
made the maximum time without running trying to try other alternatives in addition to the three types of
INPUTs.
The ranking was done at the end by mixed the chosen tracks (which generated as numeric code by
the app) and a qualitative analysis of INPUT, because this analysis of the explanations the ranking
can only be decided at the end of the three days, as required, at least three hours of evaluation.
One period was placed, but not to compete but to ensure that the maximum duration of the trial, which
was necessary for the organization of the event.
In the first test of the museum we had several problems with students who too moved in the museum
and student and teacher-researchers could not keep up. It shows how much we try to control, even
with the registry excuse and the difficulty of letting them explore. He was tried to solve with a large
number of companions during the event. But even with these precautions, the day of the event had

8042

groups of about ten students when the expected three, and it also generated stress among helpers
students, but on the other hand was also a controversy because the questions that need control and
the difficulty of leaving the holding happen, even if it means the loss of some records.
Considering the data obtained by the application logs, a curious question was that no group chose the
alternative that asked for help, they would rather err on the attempt to ask for help because they
already know that help is choosing the wrong alternative. A few also choose the magic alternative
because it also predicted that must be wrong or may not be the expected response. This is another
controversy programmed part: the student tries to anticipate what is expected and really does not
always give his explanation that is so important for the improvement of their conception of science.
Another common controversy was the time invested in making 3D models and synchronize the
recorded voice and that was cause for stress in many meetings and in the end, the animation was left
with little mobility and even mechanized and because of the noise in the museum, was bad to hear the
speech of fantam and texts were too long in the application and it drew little attention from the student.
According to the collected interviews and records videos, they were more delighted physical paper
map with the mystery of the pen with ultraviolet light and discover the location of that than trying to
listen to 3D animation.
This demonstrates how much the imagination, caused even by simple elements can be more
immersive than more elaborate sensory elements such as animation.

CONCLUSIONS

In short we can say that we had explained the following controversies:

Discovered Narratives: research on unknown characters sparked little mobilization because
they ended up choosing the best known character (Einstein) to generate more empathy.
Invented Narratives: there is often a clash between the free narrative and one that has a
pedagogical intentionality as if the two were incompatible, as have some criterion of choice of
characters and moves the competence you want to develop ever leave the less immersive
process .
Negotiated Narratives: collaboration was a very delicate process. People in general, which play
a creative role as the creation script or even pedagogical proposal has difficulty explaining your
text to another change. The negotiated narrative is not always simple. And although the
proposal of the groups were discussing everything, always, some people assumed tasks and
chose to share only when there was little chance of change. Many times the problem is the
deadline is too close and people prefer to do alone, but its controversy: how manager the time
of project to foment the collaboration.
Experienced Narratives: The kids really immersed in the proposal and actually search the ghost
trying to figure out the experiments and explain it. We can say we had two clear controversies in
the running: one was the participation of students / instructors who acted as characters. There
was a Ghostbusters who called students to participate in the adventure in Congress and
another that appeared as Einstein and even imitated the artificial way 3D animation and
appeared surprised when the child was interacting with the application.
The kids really engaged and have thrilled testimonials and many of them returned to the museum after
because the exploitation also drew attention to the space itself. Even the two experiments choose
because is the less interesting, all group interacts motivated by challenge.
Even those who participated in the production stages suggesting plots, experiments and activities or
even testing the applications, they always put themselves in the role of players and, on the
experience, even "knowing the scenes" played with the same enthusiasm and the will to to "win" or to
figure out the clues.
Another controversy is the clear attempt targeting that monitors students and researchers trying to
give children, often for anxiety generated by the process that had a particular time and often had to
keep more children than the combined. But precisely this movement should be a learning about the
contradiction leaving explore and control.
About narratives invented there was a greater concern for known and empathetic character than
proposing new characters from the research and discoveries. This was relevant to the engagement,

8043

but was lost opportunity to meet other characters and other stories. This choice and dilemmas are
common and have to always choose and learning it is also key to a conscious expansion.
It is not easy to maintain the tension between the imaginative fiction and the explicit rules of the game
to maintain interest in the ARG, but the development of this methodology is very mobilizing, especially
for those who participated in the drafting, as they begin to question these borders and how
"smudging".
In the living narratives, there is still difficulty of keeping track of the rules in a necessary way to
organize the process or how to allow and even encourage exploration that students feel free and with
autonomy, but the perception that explained by students and teachers that followed is an advance
About narratives invented and how they were lived there were several factors immersive and even
being an ARG when it was clear that it was a game, participants engaged even the imagination of
issues and challenges that parched more than the goals, but did not reach to be epic and disagree
that point McGonigal [19], for generating greater immersion was the act of discovering and some time
to imagine, even more than compete. Only two groups asked the ranking and four who bother to finish
before between twenty five groups.
One of the biggest learning process for the research group were the negotiated narratives which
required the collaboration of a diversity of people and technologies, and it did not happen without
conflict. At times collaboration did not occur and some have imposed their ideas were few moments
and that they were then discussed and explained the collective and represented a breakthrough in
processes that are not as immediate and simple, it requires a cultural change.

REFERENCES
[1]

CAROLEI, P.(2014) Games Pervasivos como proposta de potencializao da Comunicao

Cientfica. Anais do XXXVII Congresso Brasileiro de Cincias da Comunicao Foz do
Iguau.

[2]

JOHNSON, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report:
2015 Museum Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

[3]

CARMONA, S. P. K. (2012) The Game Museum as a Gamified Experience. Essay (Masters

Degree) Pontifical Catholic University of So Paulo: So Paulo.

[4]

MONTOLA, M., S., J., WAERN (2009) A. Pervasive Games: Theory and Design. Morgan
Kaufmann. P.357

[5]

MONTOLA, M., WAERN, A. (2006) Pervasive Game Design and Evaluation Guidelines for
IPerG Phase Two. Deliverable D5.4 of IPerG Project. Disponvel em www.pervasivegaming.org.

[6]

MONTOLA, M., WAERN, A.. (2006) Pervasive Game Design and Evaluation Guidelines for
IPerG Phase Two. Deliverable D5.4 of IPerG Project. Disponvel em www.pervasivegaming.org.

[7]

MCGONIGAL, JANE. (2012) A realidade em jogo. Rio de Janeiro. Best Seller

[8]

CARMONA, S. P. K. (2012) The Game Museum as a Gamified Experience. Essay (Masters

Degree) Pontifical Catholic University of So Paulo: So Paulo.

[9]

McGonigal, Jane. (2012) A realidade em jogo. Rio de Janeiro. Best Seller

[10]

CARMONA, S. P. K. The Game Museum as a Gamified Experience. Essay (Masters Degree)

Pontifical Catholic University of So Paulo: So Paulo, 2012.

[11]

MONTOLA, M., STENROS, J., WAERN (2009) A. Pervasive Games: Theory and Design.
Morgan Kaufmann.

[12]

MURRAY, J. (2003) Hamlet no Hollodeck. UNESP. SO PAULO: UNESP.

[13]

CAROLEI, P.(2014) Games Pervasivos como proposta de potencializao da Comunicao

Cientfica. Anais do XXXVII Congresso Brasileiro de Cincias da Comunicao Foz do
Iguau.

[14]

JUNG, C. G. (2004) Tipos psicolgicos. Petrpolis: Vozes, 2004.

8044

[15]

CAROLEI, P.(2014) Games Pervasivos como proposta de potencializao da Comunicao

Cientfica. Anais do XXXVII Congresso Brasileiro de Cincias da Comunicao Foz do
Iguau.

[16]

CAROLEI, P.(2014) Games Pervasivos como proposta de potencializao da Comunicao

Cientfica. Anais do XXXVII Congresso Brasileiro de Cincias da Comunicao Foz do
Iguau.

[17]

RYAN, MARIE-LAURE (2006). Avatars of story. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota

Press

[18]

VENTURINI. T. (2012) How to Explore Controversies with Actor-Network Theory. (draft version)
disponvel em tommaso.venturini@sciences-po.org

[19]

MCGONIGAL, J. (2012) A realidade em jogo. Rio de Janeiro. Best Seller

8045