Challenges in Serious Game Design and Development: Educators’ Experiences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Relatively little is known about the role of educators in serious game design and development and their experiences with serious game implementation. We investigate educators’ perceived challenges deriving from their involvement as subject matter experts during the serious game development trajectory. Methods. A secondary analysis of data collected through an exploratory survey about serious game design and development approaches was carried out. The sample included 41 educators from post-secondary education institutions across North America. An in-depth analysis of qualitative data revealed educators’ roles in game development, the challenges they faced, and the strategies they deployed in serious game design, development, and implementation. Results. Educators, as serious game designers, perceived challenges to be administrative, design-related, attitudinal, and communicative. Strategies deployed to overcome challenges during the concept development, pre-production, and production stages of game design include the creation of games that balance learning and fun, and enhanced team collaboration through cultural mediation. During the post-production stage, although challenges are acknowledged and some strategies, such as improving the usability of a game, are deployed, a clear pattern in challenges and mitigating strategies could not be observed. Conclusion. Serious game design and development can be improved by nurturing diversity of ideas and adopting creative design and development methodologies. Serious game implementation can be improved by devising effective administrative and attitudinal strategies, and incorporating diversity of ideas into target curricula. Additionally, clear directives about usability should be devised, and academic objectivity towards serious games needs to be be created. Strategies to achieve these goals should focus on developing trust between target users, the technical development team, and educators as serious game implementers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it