Contribution of the co.LAB Framework to the Collaborative Design of Serious Games: Mixed Methods Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary collaboration is essential to the successful development of serious games, albeit difficult to achieve. In a previous study, the co.LAB serious game design framework was created to support collaboration within serious game multidisciplinary design teams. Its use has not yet been validated in a real usage context. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to perform a first assessment of the impact of the co.LAB framework on collaboration within multidisciplinary teams during serious game design and development. METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted, based on 2 serious game design projects in which the co.LAB framework was used. The first phase was qualitative and carried out using a general inductive approach. To this end, all members of the first serious game project team who used the co.LAB framework were invited to take part in a focus group session (n=6). In a second phase, results inferred from qualitative data were used to define a quantitative instrument (questionnaire) that was designed according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys. Members of both project teams (n=11) were then asked to answer the questionnaire. Quantitative results were reported as median (Q1, Q3), and appropriate nonparametric tests were used to assess between-group differences. Finally, results gathered through the qualitative and quantitative phases were integrated. RESULTS: In both phases, the participation rate was 100% (6/6 and 11/11). Verbatim transcripts were classified into 4 high level themes: (1) influence on collaborative dimensions; (2) impact on project course, monitoring, and efficiency; (3) qualitative perceptions of the framework; and (4) influence of team composition on the use of the framework. The web-based questionnaire was then developed according to the 7 dimensions of collaboration by Burkhardt et al. In both projects, the co.LAB framework had a positive impact on most dimensions of collaboration during the multidisciplinary design and development of serious games. When all collaborative dimensions were aggregated, the overall impact of the framework was rated on a scale from -42 to 42 (very negative to very positive). The overall median score was 23 (Q1, Q3: 20, 27), with no significant difference between groups (P=.58). Most respondents also believed that all serious game design teams should include a member possessing significant expertise in serious game design to guide the development process. CONCLUSIONS: The co.LAB framework had a positive impact on collaboration within serious game design and development teams. However, expert guidance seems necessary to maximize development efficiency. Whether such guidance can be provided by means of a collaborative web platform remains to be determined.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".