Identifying Requirements for a Tool to Support Collaborative

Gameful Learning in Scalable e-Learning Environments

Christiane Hagedorn, Max Haubold, Jan Renz and Christoph Meinel
Hasso Plattner Institute, Potsdam, Germany
Christiane.Hagedorn@hpi.de
Max.Haubold@student.hpi.de
Jan.Renz@hpi.de
Christoph.Meinel@hpi.de

Abstract: Gameful learning describes the use of games for learning purposes. While gamification is a common term for most
people, game-based learning is not – however, the definitions of both are often mixed up. For a better understanding,
differences and similarities between game-based learning and gamification as well as findings on how to use both in scalable
e-learning environments to foster collaboration between learners are discussed in this paper. Resulting from this literature
review and first user surveys, a tool to enable both learners and teachers without sufficient programming skills to
collaboratively develop their own educational games was considered the best choice to employ gameful learning in these
environments. With such tool, simple interactive game exercises can be created to apply game-based learning by playing as
well as by creating serious games. To better understand the needs of our target group, multiple prototypes for games
potentially created with such tool have been developed. A first prototype of a game to teach Boolean logic has been
programmed in a university seminar, while other games have only been designed by now. The most important findings of
the seminar as well as the other game ideas are described in more detail. Based on the evaluation of these prototypes,
several requirements for the implementation of such tool were identified. Referring to these requirements, different
frameworks are compared and the most suitable was chosen. The chosen framework will be extended in future to meet all
demands of the target group. The research undertaken primarily focuses on a cloud-structured web service for schools in
Germany. This service includes tools for creating own interactive exercises for teachers and learners. To prove the
approaches’ generality, the tool will also be included and evaluated in three MOOC platforms with additional target groups.
As the tool must be web-based to sufficiently work in both scenarios, it can easily be integrated into other platforms in future
as well.

Keywords: game-based learning tool, game development framework, school education, MOOCs, collaboration

1. Introduction
Gamification has been a hyped buzzword for some years now (Marczewski, 2015) (Deterding, et al., 2011). Quite
some time it seemed every website and application were gamified. However, gamification didn’t prove to be
the magical cure for user motivation and relatedness some considered it to be. Often, gamification didn’t
improve the user experience because merely points, badges, and leaderboards (Chou, 2015) were added. These
are extrinsic motivators and thus don’t support long-term motivation (Hagedorn, Renz, & Meinel, 2017).
However, there are more possibilities to employ gamification, which address intrinsic motivation. Additionally,
options to use games for educational purposes exist, though many people confuse these with gamification.

Categorisation and differentiation of these terms and their meanings is conducted in Section 2, which also
explains different use cases. In Section 3, the users’ needs are analysed, before tool requirements are evaluated.
Afterwards, Section 4 describes the development process of different prototypes. Based on them, another
iteration of evaluation is presented in this section, before concluding this work with a summary and an outlook
in Section 5.

2. Gameful learning
Section 2.1 defines the term gameful learning. In Section 2.2, general applications and practical use cases for
this research are introduced.

2.1 Learning by the means of games and play

Different terms for using play and games in learning environments exist, e.g., playful learning, gameful learning,
game-based learning, serious games or gamification. Depending on the term used, applied methods and foci
slightly change, but no concrete distinction is possible as they smoothly overlap.

184
 Christiane Hagedorn et al.

Most commonly, the term gamification is used. This describes the use of game-elements in non-game contexts
(Deterding, et al., 2011). A distinction between structural and content gamification is possible (see Figure 1)
(Kapp, 2012). The first gamifies the structures of learning materials, e.g., by adding points or badges. On the
other hand, content gamification gamifies the content itself, e.g., by storytelling or easter eggs (Farber, 2017).
Gamification, however, does usually not include the use of actual games for teaching, which is described by the
term game-based learning (GBL) (Prensky, 2001). Game-based learning can also be applied in different ways: by
designing a game, or by playing a game (see Figure 1) (Papert, 1996). When playing a game, this game can either
be designed particularly for the learning context or get adapted to suit it (Van Eck, 2006). Adapting it, a shooter
game can be used for teaching ethics, or a historic strategy game for understanding trade markets and politics.
If a game is specifically designed for one learning context, it is usually called a serious game. However, applying
content gamification on learning materials could be considered a game as well (Van Eck, 2015), which makes
distinction vague. All these methods can be labelled as playful or gameful learning.

Figure 1: Four options of gameful learning: how gamification and game-based learning relate to each other,
referring to (Van Eck, 2015) and (Kapp, 2012)
The difference between play and game is just as slight as the differences between game-based learning and
gamification. Both play and game describe an activity that is motivated intrinsically and follows specific rules
(Huizinga, 1949) (Juul, 2013). However, playing doesn’t necessarily include a goal (Fullerton, 2008). A game on
the other hand has a pre-defined goal or a winning condition the players agree on in advance. For example,
playing with toy blocks teaches amongst others statics and physics (Van Eck, 2006). Trying to build even higher
and higher block structures could be considered a game, as now the player defined a concrete goal to achieve
with her play. Hence, this means playful learning describes learning in a playful way, while gameful learning
concentrates on a learning goal to achieve by using game elements. Thus, the term gameful learning is chosen
here as the umbrella term for game-based learning, serious games and gamification.

2.2 Applications of gameful learning in educational environments

Gameful learning can be applied in various use cases like college education, higher education or employee
training. It can be used with or without means of digital technology (Prensky, 2001). Without digital assistance,
e.g., leaderboards can be maintained manually on a flip chart, storytelling can be employed to connect teaching
contents, or a board game can be played.

For this ongoing research, gameful learning is applied in different web-based online scenarios. One scenario
aims at college education using a cloud-based web infrastructure for schools in Germany (HPI Schul-Cloud).
Another scenario addresses different Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) platforms: openHPI for IT related
higher education, openSAP for SAP business related courses, and OpenWHO to train frontline responders and
deploy information in healthcare emergencies. All the above-mentioned e-learning platforms are being
developed and maintained by the Hasso Plattner Institute (HPI). However, only for openHPI the content is
created by the HPI, while the other platforms are operated respectively the content is added by business
partners (SAP, WHO, educational publishers).

Both scenarios relate to scalable e-learning environments but address varying target groups and different types
of learning content. Specifically in scalable e-learning environments, it is important to employ scaling approaches
of gameful learning. This means, all elements must be meaningful for ten participants as much as for tens of

185
 Christiane Hagedorn et al.

thousands of participants. For example, leaderboards can be demotivating for participants that aren’t ranked
high (Brady, et al., 2015). Although this problem already exists with ten participants, it increases rapidly with
thousands of participants, as being ranked in the top ten percent still results in a ranking far from the first
position (Willems, et al., 2014). When using a storytelling approach, it is easier to create an efficient story for a
mostly homogeneous group of few participants, e.g., in a school context, than for a heterogeneous group of
thousands of users with different backgrounds, ages, knowledge, and reasons for taking the course, e.g., in a
MOOC context.

While gameful learning – particularly gamification – is often used to motivate learners, it also offers a great
potential to foster the understanding of complex learning materials. This effect can most likely be increased by
collaborative learning. Collaboration increases the affiliation between learners on one the hand, while on the
other hand explaining and discussing acquired knowledge to peers helps understanding it even better
(Hagedorn, Renz, & Meinel, 2017). In contrast, gamification is often used competitively, e.g., with leaderboards.
However, many gamers enjoy cooperative multiplayer games over competitive multiplayer games (Embaugh,
2016). In addition, cooperation creates a better learning atmosphere than competition. Thus, gameful learning
should be employed in a way it fosters collaboration amongst learners to maximize positive effects.

3. Analysis of needs
The learners’ demand for gameful learning exercises was evaluated for the MOOC platforms openHPI and
OpenWHO, and for the HPI Schul-Cloud. Survey results are presented in Section 3.1. Resulting from the literature
review and the surveys, a tool to enable both learners and teachers without sufficient programming skills to
collaboratively develop their own educational games was considered the best choice for employing gameful
learning in these kinds of e-learning environments. With such tool, simple interactive game exercises can be
created. Thus, applying game-based learning is possible by playing and by creating serious games. In Section 3.2,
requirements for such tool are listed. Thereafter, different game tools, frameworks, and engines are compared
to identify whether a tool fulfilling the requirements already exists.

3.1 User surveys

Figure 2: Survey results on the prevailing mood about game-based learning (top) and favoured game genres
(bottom) for openHPI users (Hagedorn, Renz, & Meinel, 2017)
In a first survey, openHPI users were asked whether they would like to use game-based interactive content.
About 86% stated they were interested in interactive exercises. The majority preferred short interactive game
exercises over an extensive game (see Figure 2 top). Another question addressed their preferred game genres
and usual gaming behaviour. For these, evaluation had shown no significant differences between age or gender.
Thus, gaming and gameful learning are appreciated amongst a sufficient number of heterogenous participants.
Strategy and puzzle games were liked the most (see Figure 2 bottom) (Hagedorn, Renz, & Meinel, 2017).

186
 Christiane Hagedorn et al.

Following the results, it was reasoned that course teachers should be empowered by a simple to use tool to
create short interactive exercises and make these available in different course settings. These interactive
exercises should complement or replace a self-test. The latter simplifies efficiency evaluation, as the same
learning objectives are analysed and compared.

In addition to openHPI, the WHO required a technical option to embed interactive content or games into their
OpenWHO platform. On the one hand, the WHO already developed many interactive materials, which are spread
widely across different platforms. Thus, it is important to offer an option for including these materials on
OpenWHO. On the other hand, the WHO offers live role-playing simulation exercises for frontline responders,
which should be partly transformed into interactive exercises (Hagedorn, et al., 2018). This confirms that the
need for a tool to create interactive game exercises is given for MOOC platforms. However, none of the common
platforms (Coursera, edX, …) offers such service so far. Thus, few MOOCs include games, and deployed games
have been developed independently from the MOOC platforms (Hagedorn, Renz, & Meinel, 2017).

3.2 First evaluation process

To better understand the needs of our target group, multiple prototypes for games potentially created with such
tool were developed. A first prototype of a game to teach Boolean logic was programmed in a university seminar.
Other games have only been designed by now. Based on the evaluation of these prototypes, several
requirements for the implementation of such tool were identified. Referring to these requirements, different
frameworks were compared and the most suitable was chosen. The chosen framework was then used for the
development of a first game (see Section 4).

3.2.1 Required technology and functionality

Designing paper prototypes helped not only to identify games that can be created with such tool but also
understanding what functionality is required. Therefore, game ideas for courses on different topics were
scribbled: for example, a course on social media privacy can be enhanced by a game where the player feels the
consequences of insufficient privacy settings rather than just reading about it. In another game for an internet
security course, participants try to steal as much information as possible due to common security mistakes like
not locking the screen, or passwords pinned onto the desk. This game could either be played as single player or
as multiplayer game. In multiplayer mode, it could be used collaboratively or competitively with respectively
against other learners.

In these designed games, leaners don’t only use the mouse as input device to click on different items but also
enter search terms via keyboard to take action. Thus, instead of choosing from a predefined set of options,
coming up with own ideas is required. This distinguishes the exercises not only visibly but also pedagogically
from multiple choice tests.

The prototypes were designed for actual courses running on openHPI, to understand how the offered courses
can benefit from these kinds of exercises. Concluding from the prototypes, illustrated text adventures, point and
click games, or strategic simulations will most likely be created as primary game types. Summing up both the
specific requirements for those kinds of games and the required functionality by scalable e-learning
environments, this concludes the following requirements:
ƒ Web-based: The tool must create web-based output and be web-based itself to sufficiently be incorporated
in both scenarios. Thus, it must be developed without strong boundaries to one use case and is integrable
into other platforms in future as well. In addition, it is desirable if mobile applications can be deployed
without much additional effort. However, at least responsive design respectively mobile friendly versions
must be supported.
ƒ 2.5D graphics: The tool must be able to display 2.5D graphics, so 2D graphics with different layers are a
minimum requirement. For some games, it is also helpful to use 3D graphics.
ƒ Extensible: The framework or engine must be extensible and customizable. Of course, a completely new
tool could be developed, but using an existing framework as a basis is more reasonable and reduces the
development effort.
ƒ Integration of standards: It is essential that the tool either supports the Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI)
standard itself or allows to integrate it. Additionally, making use of the xAPI is beneficial.

187
 Christiane Hagedorn et al.

ƒ Game mechanics: Creating game mechanics must be possible without programming. Thus, a scripting editor
is needed. In case the game developer is confident with programming, it can be beneficial for her to use a
common programming language via an API instead.
ƒ Alternative paths: To not depend on linear learning, being able to integrate non-linear learning content is
desirable. At least making users believe their actions matter makes them more related and adds to the game
respectively learning experience by giving them a freedom of choice (Novak, 2012).
ƒ Collaboration: Collaboration is possible by a peer review assignment. In these, learners must explain their
actions and reasoning after playing the game. As recapitulating and critically reviewing one’s own actions
improves the learning process (Juul, 2013), this adds another layer to the game exercise, potentially making
it more efficient compared to multiple choice test assessments.
ƒ It is additionally desirable to add multiplayer functionality to the exercises for more active collaboration.
Whether collaboration is purposeful, however, depends on the game exercise itself. Thus, multiplayer
functionality is appreciated in the framework, but not compulsory.
ƒ Support / best practices: One of the most essential challenges is creating good educational games, to ensure
they are fun. Often, games specifically designed for educational purposes lack this important requirement
(Prensky, 2001). As potential users are most likely no experts in both pedagogy and game design, they might
lack essential information. For this reason, tool users must be provided with support, e.g., by best practices.
Concluding, this means that the tool must be beginner-friendly.
ƒ Maintainability: Games must easily be maintainable, e.g., to adapt them for other use cases or revise
security issues.

3.2.2 Framework, tool, and game engine evaluation

In a first framework evaluation, different game engines and frameworks for storytelling were tested. The well-
known game engines Unity, Unreal Engine, and GameMaker were evaluated in more detail against the
requirements. These game engines offer lots of functionality, each with a different focus. However, only a subset
of functionality is needed within the tool. Due to this complexity, achieving fast and simple results is hard for
unexperienced users. Also, creating non-linear learning content requires expert knowledge.

Using a more light-weight game framework for HTML was considered another option. Different frameworks
were compared. Out of these, EaselJS, MelonJS, Phaser, and Crafty were evaluated in more detail (also see
Section 4.2.1). Finally, the free open source HTML5 game framework Phaser was chosen for a first hands-on
prototype.

Figure 3: Twine story editor. Non-linear stories are created with a simple syntax. Source: twinery.org
Although not chosen for a prototype, positively to mention is the open-source tool for interactive, non-linear
stories Twine (see Figure 3). It creates HTML websites including JavaScript that are mobile friendly. With this
tool, alternative story paths can intuitively be designed. However, as the tool is intended for text-based games,
it is complicated to include complex interactions with graphics. While Twine offers a helpful set of scripting
opportunities, more than three different non-compatible story formats exist, each offering a different set of
script functionality. As they are community-maintained, it is hard to determine which story formats will be

188
 Christiane Hagedorn et al.

maintained in future. Thus, Twine can’t fulfil all requirements but serves as a proper example for the tool’s look-
and-feel.

Other existing game development tools like Muzzylane or Gamefroot are another good inspiration, but don’t
fulfil all requirements as well. Thus, extending a game framework was chosen for the first development process.

4. Development process
This section introduces different parts of the development process. Initially, a gamified Java MOOC has been
created (Section 4.1). Afterwards, a serious game has been developed as part of a university seminar. Results
and experiences are explained in Section 4.2. After the seminar, more requirements were identified. Thus, a
second evaluation iteration became necessary. Results are provided in Section 4.3.

4.1 MOOC on object-oriented programming in Java

To analyse the potential of gameful learning without extending the MOOC platform, content gamification was
used in a first course on openHPI. The chosen course for content gamification was a beginner’s course on object-
oriented programming (OOP) in Java. It ran over a period of four weeks in spring 2017 and included videos, self-
tests, and lots of hands-on programming exercises. Additionally, a detective story was added to connect the
course’s programming exercises. The story also helped finding descriptive examples for the videos.

In the beginning of each week, an optional story video was unlocked. At the end of each week, participants were
able to vote from two to three story decision options. The story followed the majority of users’ decision; thus,
the corresponding video was unlocked in the next course week. In addition, easter eggs were added: e.g., some
programming exercises included optional story hints. Other exercises were linked to puzzles connected to the
real world, e.g., a geocache was hidden. Although many participants lived close to the location, the geocache
was, however, not spotted within the course runtime. As another easter egg, story characters sometimes
commented in the forums, e.g., in the welcome thread in which participants could introduce themselves.

Figure 4: User feedback for the first storified java course on openHPI
After the course finished, about 19% of all users that answered the course end survey stated the story motivated
them to complete the course (see Figure 4). About 60% liked the story but were not motivated to proceed with
the course. Only about 3% stated they didn’t like the story. All story elements were optional content and not
linked to any extrinsic rewards like a badge. Thus, participants were not biased extrinsically in proceeding with
the story elements. Still, participation in these optional elements was – though lower than the compulsive
elements – quite high. Even some participants that were rather sceptical in the beginning stated they liked the
story in the end, while others that didn’t like it just skipped the elements.

A second iteration of the course, running in summer 2018, was designed with a subsequent storyline. The same
detective from the previous course iteration was introduced in this course, but with a different storyline. As the
user survey feedback (see Section 3.1) was mostly positive, a serious game on Boolean algebra developed in a
university seminar was added in the second iteration.

4.2 Seminar on web programming: serious game development

Four software engineering students teamed up to create a serious game for the openHPI platform. This was part
of a bachelor’s degree university seminar on web programming in fall semester 2017/18. For a higher student
engagement, they could choose the topic of the educational game freely. They decided to build a game for
Boolean logic for the OOP in Java MOOC in summer 2018.

189
 Christiane Hagedorn et al.

Following, the course and game specifications (Section 4.2.1), the development process and results (Section
4.2.2), the students’ feedback (Section 4.2.3), and the conclusions made from this seminar (Section 4.2.4) are
explained in detail.

4.2.1 Requirements
The seminar’s goal was the development of a serious game for one openHPI course. This included the technical
design, user interface design, and the game logic. The students had the choice of either designing and
implementing their own game concept or implementing a given concept. As one of the participants was
interested in designing a game concept, they chose the first option.

Technically, they were required to develop a game that runs on web browsers and mobile devices. This didn’t
require a mobile app, but the web output had to be responsive for mobile devices. For connecting the game to
openHPI, the game must serve as an LTI provider. Minimal required technologies to be implemented were
HTML5, JavaScript and LTI 1.1 with a responsive design. Additional technology, e.g., a game framework like
Phaser, webGL or an AR framework were optional.

The students decided to use a game framework for development for easier text handling, scene management
and graphics support. Prior to programming their designed game, they had to choose one framework that
seemed most suitable to them while supporting most of the technical requirements. After comparing different
frameworks, they decided to use Phaser with a Rails Server for the LTI communication.

4.2.2 Development process and results

At seminar start, the students came up with an idea for the representing Boolean algebra by logic gates. While
the representation idea came up fast, they needed much assistance on creating a game based on their idea. The
overall game experience, learning items, and story texts were mostly created by the teaching staff who had
previous experience in this area. The students assisted this process.

The students worked with Phaser 2. They used GitHub for collaboration and coordination. In the development
process, they used placeholder graphics which were replaced after their final submission. They had to ensure all
placeholders had the correct size.

Figure 5: Screenshots from the Boolean logic game

In the created game (see Figure 5), the player takes the role of the detective’s opponent, breaking in a museum
and steeling an important exhibit. All doors are locked, so the player must use Boolean logic to open them. The
villain brings a minion that supports the player solving the puzzles. The game consists of four rooms with a
different focus on Boolean algebra in each room; each including optional learning items which teach the room’s
underlying Boolean logic, and one exercise which must be solved to open the next room. Players can fail the
exercise, but to not demotivate them, they are punished by losing only few points, being able to replay the game
as often as they want to achieve full scores in the end. Once they fail one exercise, they must restart this room’s
exercise. Thus, they can revisit relevant learning items, being equipped with the essential knowledge afterwards.

190
 Christiane Hagedorn et al.

Each room’s learning items and exercises had been part of a self-test in the previous iteration of the Java MOOC,
which allows to evaluate whether this course’s element is understood better than the previous course iteration
one’s. User assessment takes place in a weekly course assignment.

4.2.3 Students experience

The students perceived Phaser as a lightweight, quick to set-up framework where getting started was easy. They
found lots of example code and good documentation that helped them using the framework. Sprite handling
and basic text rendering was simple to use for them. They were also happy to see that created games were
mobile friendly, though they had to manipulate some elements to make them responsive. Phaser’s states helped
them breaking up the game in small pieces.

However, they realized advanced text rendering and making use of more complex HTML components like
adjusting textboxes with wrapping texts was hard to them. Although they had previous knowledge in CSS, these
skills were of little use to them. They also had trouble with Phaser groups, states, and maintaining the
modularization. In retrospective, they criticised they created complex classes.

In general, they perceived more drawbacks using the framework than experiencing benefits. However, they
stated this was most likely because they thought the framework would ease development but struggled with
some of the framework’s key concepts. They still recommended not using this framework for such kinds of game
exercises in future.

4.2.4 Conclusions from the seminar

Although the students were experienced in software engineering and had proficient knowledge about Boolean
algebra, it was not possible for them to create a good game without support. They were not only missing game
design skills, but also pedagogical knowledge. While this isn’t surprising, it already indicates similar issues apply
for teachers when they create own interactive exercises with the tool to be build. Thus, the tool should support
teachers with helpful advices and common patterns.

Some presumably problematic topics were already determined in the seminar. For example, integration of a
point system for evaluating the learners’ results didn’t make it to the students’ final submission. As finding a
sufficient calculation for the points was one of the biggest problems the students encountered, a simple point
system should be included in the tool. Therewith, the students also found it difficult to provide helpful feedback
for the learner in case she struggles with the learning item. As feedback is one of the most important elements
of a game (Juul, 2013) (Prensky, 2001), the tool needs to provide support for feedback mechanics. They also
didn’t include alternative game paths, which are desirable for future game exercises as well.

Furthermore, in the development process it was noticed simple localization will be of importance to be able to
run the same game in different courses with different languages. Also, being able to easily exchange graphics is
important for the tool.

Another conclusion from the seminar was that Phaser might not have been the most sufficient framework for
the tool. Thus, another iteration of evaluation became necessary.

4.3 Second iteration of the evaluation

As the use of an HTML game framework didn’t prove to be the best approach, other possibilities were considered
again. The Boolean logic game was developed by software engineers; thus, it was not necessary to provide them
with a simple editor to create their game. However, it is an important requirement the tool must meet.
Recapitulating the previously evaluated tools and engines, block-based scripting occurred as an often-used
method, e.g., in the Unreal Engine (see Figure 6 left) or Gamefroot. For this reason, snap! respectively scratch
was evaluated in the next step.

191
 Christiane Hagedorn et al.

Figure 6: Block-based programming. Left: Unreal Engine blueprints. Source: docs.unrealengine.com;

Right: Snap! blocks. Source: snap.berkeley.edu
In the first iteration of the needs analysis, HPI Schul-Cloud was not targeted. However, continuous tool
development with faster feedback loops are more likely in this scenario compared to the MOOC platforms,
where the same exercise can usually be tested only once per year. In addition, fostering collaboration between
learners seemed more natural in school contexts, thus making it an inspiration how to use collaboration
efficiently in MOOC contexts. As collaboration was rarely addressed in the first development process, HPI Schul-
Cloud became a focus of interest for the tool.

To understand how such tool would be used in schools, a second evaluation deemed necessary. At first, teachers
were asked if they appreciated such tool for creating interactive exercises. Although they liked the tools itself,
they instead preferred a collaborative use by their pupils. They also asked for a possibility to use this tool not
only collaboratively within one classroom, but across classes. This enables asking other classes, e.g., for
background music in music classes, game mechanics in programming classes or graphics in art classes.
Commenting on developed games was another proposed use case, thus senior pupils can support younger ones.
For coordinating distributed work, issues and change tracking, the seminar students used git. Such underlying
technology is useful in a collaborative tool environment as well. Similar applies to graphics, where the students
used placeholders. Adding a set of placeholder graphics might be helpful for the tool as well.

Observing pupils in afternoon programming study groups, it was interesting to learn snap is used already in
junior high schools. They were able to develop own games within few hours without previous programming
experience. Thus, creating a tool prototype using a block-based editor seems reasonable.

5. Summary and outlook

Gameful learning is introduced as an umbrella term for gamification and game-based learning. It can support
motivation and understanding in various use cases. Different examples for use cases and concrete exercises have
been described in this paper. There also is evidence that a tool for creating collaborative gameful learning in
scalable e-learning environments makes sense. This tool must be web-based, platform independent and should
at least support 2.5D graphics. Support of non-linear interactive stories is desirable. The tool should include an
editor for scripting game behaviour. For unexperienced programmers, block-based scripting in the editor is
helpful. For experienced programmers, an API to use the tool with common programming languages is
contemplable.

Once the tool is implemented within the platforms, it can be used by teachers and learners to apply game-based
learning both by playing and by creating. Being able to create fun games, most likely unexperienced game
developers require support by common patterns. This includes specifically patterns for fostering collaboration,
as well as for calculation of points and an appropriate feedback system. Creating non-linear exercises should
also be accomplishable by the users.

192
 Christiane Hagedorn et al.

More necessary common patterns must be identified in future. For this, more concrete prototypes will be
developed. Especially in school context, further use cases can be investigated, and other commonly used tools
determined. Interviews with pupils will be conducted in addition. The tool might be developed using snap as a
basis. Testing and improving the tool will be done in HPI Schul-Cloud context and compared later to results in
the MOOC scenarios.

In addition to the tool development, the developed game on Boolean logic will be evaluated. Once real users
play this game, they will most likely hint to more issues that had not been addressed yet. Thus, also the need for
more common patterns to be implemented later on will be demonstrated. Finally, the gamified content of the
OOP Java MOOC will be subject of further research.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our students Jacob Freise, Max Haubold, Aron Kunze, and Conrad Lempert for the
development of many game parts described in this work in Section 4.2, and the experiences they shared with
us. We also would like to thank Lea Gerneth for creating most of the game graphics.

References
Brady, M., Devitt, A., Lamest, M., & Pearson, S. (March 30, 2015). Winner and Losers in Gamification? The Role of
Gamification in Third Level Learning and Higher Order Processing. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2587057
Chou, Y.-k. (2015). Actionable Gamification: Beyond Points, Badges, and Leaderboards. Octalysis Media.
Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O'Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Using Game Design Elements in Non-
Gaming Contexts. In CHI ’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2425-2428). New York,
NY, USA.
Embaugh, K. (2016, July 21). Retrieved from Local Co-Op is The Most Consistently Appealing Mode:
https://quanticfoundry.com/2016/07/21/social-gaming/
Farber, M. (2017). Gamify Your Classroom: A Field Guide to Game-Based Learning (New Literacies and Digital
Epistemologies) (2nd edition ed.). New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Fullerton, T. (2008). Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating. MIT Press.
Hagedorn, C., Renz, J., & Meinel, C. (2017). Digital Game-Based Learning in MOOCs. In Proceedings of IEEE Global
Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON2017).
Hagedorn, C., Utunen, H., Renz, J., & Meinel, C. (2018). Exploring Possibilities to Partially Transform Simulation Exercises
into Interactive Games on OpenWHO.org. Proceedings of IEEE 6th International Conference on Serious Games and
Applications for Health (SeGAH2018).
Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Juul, J. (2013). The Art of Failure: An Essay on the Pain of Playing Video Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and
Education. John Wiley & Sons, Pfeiffer.
Marczewski, A. (2015, August 21). Retrieved May 23, 2018, from The Hype is Over - Gamification is Here to Stay:
https://www.gamified.uk/2015/08/21/the-hype-is-over-gamification-is-here-to-stay/
Murphy, C. (2011). Why Games Work and the Science of Learning. In Modsim World Conference. Virginia Beach, VA.
Novak, J. (2012). Game Development Essentials: An Introduction. Cengange Learning.
Papert, S. (1996). The Connected Family: Bridging the Digital Generation Gap. Atlanta, Ga: Longstreet Press.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. McGraw-Hill.
Staubitz, T., Willems, C., Hagedorn, C., & Meinel, C. (2017). The Gamification of a MOOC platform. Proceedings of IEEE
Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON2017).
Van Eck, R. N. (2006). Digital Game-Based Learning: It's Not Just the Digital Natives Who Are Restless. In EDUCAUSE Review,
vol. 41, no. 2 (March/April 2006). Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2006/1/digital-gamebased-
learning-its-not-just-the-digital-natives-who-are-restless
Van Eck, R. N. (2015). Digital Game-Based Learning: Still Restless, After All These Years. In EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 50, no. 6
(November/December 2015). Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/10/digital-game-based-learning-
still-restless-after-all-these-years
Willems, C., Fricke, N., Meier, S., Meissner, R., Rollmann, K.-A., Voelcker, S., Meinel, C. (2014). Motivating the Masses –
Gamified Massive Open Online Courses on openHPI. In Proceedings of EDULEARN 2014 (pp. 4042-4052). Barcelona,
Spain.

193
Copyright of Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning is the
property of Academic Conferences & Publishing International Ltd. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.