Methods and Technologies for Wrapping

Educational Theory into Serious Games

Jacqueline Krebs and Klaus P. Jantke

Fraunhofer Institute for Digital Media Technology, Children’s Media Dept., Erich-K¨astner-Str. 1a, 99094 Erfurt, Germany

Keywords:

Game-based Learning, Serious Games, Instructional Design, Pedagogical Patterns, Critical Thinking,

Argumentation Maps, Storyboarding.

Abstract:

Although play does undoubtedly take a signiﬁcant place in the development of human individuals and animals

allowing for a manifold of risk-free exploration and experiment, contemporary serious games largely fail in

meeting the high expectations of game-based learning. Educators know how to teach. Moreover, they know

how to set up conditions, including approaches to playful education, in which learners can actively engage.

In particular, experienced educators know how to adapt to a particular learner’s needs, wishes and desires.

But digital games including those named serious are computer programs. They do not know about didactics.

There is a need for methods and technologies suitable to bring educational principles and pedagogical patterns

into digital systems intended to enhance learning. The authors advocate the method of storyboarding and the

technology of storyboard interpretation to wrap educational theory into e-learning systems, in general, and

into serious games, in particular. Some comprehensive case study demonstrates the feasibility of this approach.

1 THE AUTHORS’ POSITION

Edutainment started as a serious attempt to

create computer games that taught children

different subjects. Arguably, it ended up as

a caricature of computer games and

a reactionary use of learning theory.

[ (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007), p. 42 ]

Egenfeldt-Nielsen’s critical view at serious games

supported by a variety of critical studies such as, e.g.,

(Jantke, 2006) and (Jantke, 2007).

Apparently, the crux is “to get educational theory

into serious games”. This key issue is not particular

to serious games, but applies to educational media, in

general.

Latterly, some authors discuss the relevance of a

few educational approaches to game-based learning

(see, e.g., (Jin and Low, 2011), (Kirkley et al., 2011),

(Leemkuil and de Jong, 2011)). Kirkley and his co-

authors, for instance, investigate the way of getting a

ﬁve-stage learning cycle

of problem-based learning

perspectives (Duffy et al., 2009) realized in a certain

See (Sawyer and Smith, 2008) for debating the concept.

The topical literature is full of learning cycles ranging

from John Dewey (Dewey, 1938) to David Kolb’s Learning

Style Inventory (Kolb, 1984) to ad hoc cycles in domains

such as nursing education (Murphy et al., 2011).

serious game. The game play is discussed in much

detail, but it remains largely open how to bring the

educational theory into the digital system.

The present contribution is aimed at advocating

the authors’ following position.

Storyboarding is a methodology appropriate for

anticipating user experiences of media interaction

including game play and learning. Consequently,

storyboarding is a methodology of didactic design.

In accordance with (Jantke and Knauf, 2005),

the authors exclusively consider digital storyboards.

Digital storyboards may be easily manipulated by

computer programs for purposes such as checking

completeness and consistency, for instance.

Digital storyboards allow for going even further

as expressed by the authors’ supplementary position

to be advocated by the present paper.

Storyboards may be interpreted algorithmically.

Systems of e-learning, in general, and serious

games, in particular, may run digital storyboards

according to the educators’ speciﬁcation.

The recent storyboard interpretation technology

(see (Fujima et al., 2013) and (Arnold et al., 2013))

allows for experimenting with variants of educational

principles and pedagogical patterns.

497

Krebs J. and P. Jantke K..

Methods and Technologies for Wrapping - Educational Theory into Serious Games.

DOI: 10.5220/0004955104970502

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2014), pages 497-502

ISBN: 978-989-758-020-8

 2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

2 BACKGROUND THEORY

Educational perspectives and theories are manifold.

This position paper cannot afford any reasonable

overview. Instead, the authors conﬁne themselves

to their application domain of critical thinking

(Bassham, 2008; Fisher, 2006; Garz et al., 1999).

There is the crucial question of how to wrap, so to

speak, the educational theory of critical thinking and

moral reasoning into some serious digital game.

2.1 Kohlberg’s Psychology

of Moral Development

Kohlberg’s substantial theory of moral development

(Kohlberg, 1984) which was inspired by Piaget’s ap-

proach (Piaget, 1932) is discussed as an example of

a theory that views conscious moral reasoning as a

central component of morality. Kohlberg’s method to

study the strength of moral judgment was quite sim-

ple. He used Piaget’s story-telling technique to tell

people stories involving moral dilemmas. He pre-

sented mainly children and adolescents dilemmas in

which different moral factors conﬂicted. In each case

was a choice to be considered, for example between

the rights of some authority and the needs of some

deserving individual who is being unfairly treated.

The most famous one is the Heinz dilemma: A

woman was near death from a special kind of cancer.

There was one drug that the doctors thought might

save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in

the same town had recently discovered. The drug was

expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten

times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid

200 for the radium and charged

2,000 for a small

dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz,

went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but

he could only get together about

1,000, which is

half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife

was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him

pay later. But the druggist said, “No, I discovered the

drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So Heinz

got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal

the drug for his wife.

Kohlberg asked then a series of question, e.g.:

• Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to

steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

• Would it change anything if Heinz did not love

his wife?

Kohlberg found that children from many cultures

typically move through a sequence of levels and sub-

stages, although not everyone reaches a higher level

of moral reasoning.

2.2 The Social Intuitionist Model (SIM)

& Moral Foundation Theory (MFT)

The Social Intuitionist Model of moral judgment

(Haidt, 2001) is a valuable contrast to the rational-

ist approach of Kohlberg, where moral reasoning is

described as conscious deliberation. Haidt, instead,

posits that moral judgment is mostly based on auto-

matic processes–moral intuitions–rather than on con-

scious reasoning. People engage in reasoning primar-

ily to ﬁnd evidence to support their initial intuitions.

Accordingly, the SIM is seen as prequel to the MFT.

Where does morality come from? Why does

morality vary so much across cultures? Is morality

one thing, or many?

In brief, the MFT proposes that six (or more) in-

nate and universally availabale psychological systems

are the foundations of intuitive ethics (Graham et al.,

2011), (Graham et al., 2013)). These so-called moral

foundations are characterized by unique conforming

challenges, contents, triggering stimuli, virtues, and

emotions. In Western cultures issues with Harm/Care

and with Fairness/Cheating dominate. The moral

foundation Harm/Care is triggered by suffering and

distress, especially expressed by one’s own kin. It’s

accompanied by the emotion of compassion. The

Fairness/Cheating foundation deals with equality, co-

operation, and deception. It’s accompanied by the

emotions anger, guilt and gratitude. Further moral

foundations are: Loyalty/Betrayal domains regulate

group cooperation through pride and anger. It under-

lies virtues of patriotism and self-sacriﬁce for the

group. Whereas Authority/Subversion domains con-

trol hierarchies by recruiting the emotions respect and

fear. It underlies virtues of leadership and follower-

ship. The Sanctity/Degradation domain is referring to

food, health, and sexuality (thus conceiving the body

as sacred). This foundation is mostly accompanied by

feelings of disgust. The latest moral foundation is the

Liberty/Oppression domain and deals with feelings of

reactance and resentment of people toward those who

dominate them and restrict their liberty.

2.3 Argument Mapping

In general, argument mapping (van Gelder, 2013)

(see also (Twardy, 2004)) is described by means of

diagrams which show the structure of an argument or

of a set of arguments. Normally these are box-and-

arrow diagrams (graphs in terms of mathematics, see

section 4.4). Argument mapping is akin to other map-

ping procedures such as mind mapping and concept

mapping, but it focuses on the logical, evidential or

inferential relationships among propositions.

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

498

3 WRAPPING TECHNOLOGY

Quite intuitively and largely informally speaking,

assume you adopt psychological and/or pedagogical

positions to be implemented within some technology-

enhanced educational framework such as a serious

game. How do you make sure that your theory really

works, i.e. it shapes the human-system interaction?

In other words, how do you wrap, so to speak, the

educational theory in e-learning systems, in general,

and in serious games, in particular?

The authors’ ultimate answer is Storyboarding `a la

(Jantke and Knauf, 2005).

3.1 Storyboarding Human Experience

Storyboarding means the organization of experience

(Jantke and Knauf, 2005). To allow for an effec-

tive computational usage of storyboards throughout

the process of design and implementation (see, e.g.,

section 3.4), storyboards are assumed to be digital.

Conceptually, storyboards are ﬁnite, hierarchically

structured, indexed families of ﬁnite, directed graphs.

Seen as a family of graphs, every storyboard is

of the form F = {G

}

i∈I

, where I is any ﬁnite index

set. For simplicity, one may assume I = {1, . . . , k},

where k is any natural number indicating how many

graphs belong to F . Every individual graph G

is of

the form [N

, E

, sub

, c

], where, as usual N

and E

denote the nodes and the edges of G

, respectively.

The mapping sub

: N

→ 2

is assigning to every node

a set of indices telling which graphs of the collection

may be substituted for this particular node. Further,

the mapping c

assigns to every edge some condition

of executability

Figure 1: Illustration of Alternative Graph Substitutions.

Due to the lack of space, all details of logics and log-

ical reasoning are suppressed throughout the present paper.

Variants of logics in use are discussed, e.g., in (Jantke and

Arnold, 1996). Note, furthermore, that the present approach

is slightly different from (Arnold, 1996), where constraints

are not assigned to edges, butto nodes. The approach under-

lying the present paper is more expressive.

For the purpose of the present position paper, it

is sufﬁcient to understand storyboards as collections

of graphs as exempliﬁed in ﬁgure 1. Those nodes

which may be subject to graph substitution are called

episodes. Other nodes are called scenes. Every scene

has some meaning in the domain such as showing

some picture or playing some video, presenting some

exercise to users, running an animation, and the like.

3.2 Layered Language of Ludology

(Lenerz, 2009) discusses the description of media ex-

periences on different levels of granularity–the so-

called Layered Languages of Ludology. Similarly,

educational theory has varying levels of abstraction.

Storyboardingis an appropriatetechnologyof top-

down design beginning on high levels of abstraction.

3.3 Pedagogical Patterns

To keep it short, it is sufﬁcient to know that the

authors take the origins such as (Alexander, 1979)

as well as modern ad hoc approaches toward the

needs of digital games research such as (Bj¨ork and

Holopainen, 2004) and (Jantke, 2012) into account.

The unprecedented strength and clarity of formal ap-

proaches such as (Angluin, 1980) is preferred due

to the intention to work with patterns algorithmically

(Jantke, 2009).

This allows for dealing with pedagogical patterns

described largely informally in everyday language (as

in (Pedagogical Patterns Advisory Board, 2012), e.g.)

more stringently using the graph-based storyboarding

approach as adopted in the present publication (see

(Jantke, 2013) for a more comprehensive study).

Pedagogical patterns are–with respect to above-

mentioned Layered Languages of Ludology–lower

level concepts. Patterns of learner activity may be

represented as “smaller” graphs for possibly multiple

usage, i.e. for substitution in different places.

3.4 The Technology of Digital

Storyboard Interpretation

The so-called Storyboard Interpretation Technology

is a very recent technological innovation published

for the ﬁrst time in (Fujima et al., 2013) and (Arnold

et al., 2013). The essence of this novel approach is

to make digital storyboards immediately executable.

E-learning systems and digital games work like

interpreters–a term and an operational understanding

adopted from computer science–running, so to speak,

on the storyboard. In doing so, the system checks at

every scene how to interact with the human learner.

MethodsandTechnologiesforWrapping-EducationalTheoryintoSeriousGames

499

4 THE GAME-BASED LEARNING

CASE STUDY “CATCH 22”

This section is intended to demonstrate the authors’

positions by means of some practical application: the

serious game “Catch 22”. Wrapping technologies in-

troduced in the preceding section have been deployed

for a certain implementation surveyed in the sequel.

Educational theory is reﬂected by some storyboard

structures anticipating intended player experiences.

4.1 Underlying Educational Theory

Kohlberg did not ascribe moral development and

moral judgment to innate factors, but rather attributed

the transition between levels (pre-conventional, con-

ventional, post-conventional) as driven by the oppor-

tunities afforded in everyday social interactions. Al-

teration may occur as a result of everyday role tak-

ing and change of perspective fostering empathy, or it

may be driven by reﬂections about moral situations.

Dilemma-discussion suits perfectly to encourage crit-

ical thinking, perspective changes and moral reason-

ing skills.

Haidt’s SIM, in contrast, is understood as a social

model in that it deemphasizes the private reasoning

and emphasizes, instead, the importance of social and

cultural inﬂuences. It states that moral judgment is

a dual process, which is generally caused by quick

moral intuitions, so-called automatic evaluations, and

is followed (when needed) by slow, ex post facto

moral reasoning, so-called effortful conscious mental

activity.

According to (Haidt, 2001), the underlying SIM

(see section 2.2) is visualized as in ﬁgure 2 below.

The numbered links, drawn for Person A only, are

Figure 2: The Social Intuitionist Model of Moral Judgment.

(1) the intuitive judgment link, (2) the post hoc rea-

soning link, (3) the reasoned persuasion link, and

(4) the social persuasion link. Two additional links

are hypothesized to occur less frequently: (5) the rea-

soned judgment link and (6) the private reﬂection link.

4.2 Top-level Serious Game Design

We implemented Kohlberg’s dilemma-discussion ap-

proach combined with Haidt’s SIM in a digital game

we called “Catch 22” to educate moral reasoning. For

this purpose, we designed six dilemma-situations ref-

erencing the moral foundations mentioned in sec. 2.2.

The player wanders around in a 3D-world, has to

solve quests and deals thereby with various virtual

people who involve the player in moral dilemmas.

The decision making process follows ad-hoc to the

exposition and experience of the dilemma.

Target of the game is to enhance critical think-

ing skills and to raise awareness of the complexity of

moral reasoning. For this purpose, the reasons and

objections, which count for the chosen position, are

structured and arranged in argument maps.

According to the authors’ position advocated by

means of the present paper, emphasis is put on the

question how to wrap, so to speak, Kohlberg’s and

Haidt’s theory into the digital system to be developed.

Didactic principles underlying an e-learning design

and implementation become structurally visible.

4.3 Wrapping Educational Theory

Top-down

To wrap educational theory in a serious game like

“Catch 22”, it was necessary to grapple with game

design.

Figure 3: Some Excerpt from a High Level Storyboard of

“Catch 22 ” Experience of Game Play.

If and when people play games, they have an expe-

rience. It is this experience that a game designer cares

about; because without the experience, the game is

worthless. Experiences are so much part of human

beings, they are hard to think about–even thinking

about experiences is an experience. Although every-

one is familiar with experiences, they are quite hard

to describe. You can’t see them, touch them, or hold

them; above all else you can’t really share them. So

each person’s experience of something is completely

unique, no two people can have identical experiences

of the same thing.

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

500

To put it straight: The digital game itself is not

the experience. The game enables the experience.

So what we do, when we are talking about wrapping

educational theory, we think about game design, we

create artifacts (sets of rules, game boards, computer

programs, ...) that are likely to create certain kinds of

experiences when human players interact with them.

As a design methodology, we deploy storyboarding

(Jantke and Knauf, 2005).

In ﬁgure 3, we imaged an extract of the high level

graph of the designed game experience in “Catch 22”.

4.4 Wrapping Educational Theory

Bottom-up

The argument mapping is embedded into game play.

Motivated after a conscious decision was made in

a dilemma-situation, it promotes clarity and insight,

more detailed and complete articulation, and more

deliberate evaluation. We use argument mapping to

help students to understand how arguments are con-

structed, and how they can enhance their reasoning

skills, by bringing visual clarity to complex issues.

Figure 4: Expansion of an Episode by an Argument Map.

Argument mapping (van Gelder, 2013) can be

an effective way to improve general critical thinking

skills. Argument mapping can also promote rational

reasoning in complex situations and help making bet-

ter decisions in the future.

The argument mapping technique itself is simple

but it is not easy, because it is just a visual discipline

for clarifying our thinking. And clarifying our think-

ing is not easy, even with visual discipline.

To illustrate the issue presented, see ﬁgure 4, and

notice that mapping makes it clear which statements

serve as the main conclusion, which serve as reasons

to believe that conclusion, and which statements are

intended as objections to which claims.

5 CONCLUSIONS & OUTLOOK

Even nowadays, far too many systems of technology-

enhanced learning serve mostly administrational pur-

poses such as providing documents to learners

and bookkeeping by teachers. There is a rather

wide consensus that educational theory needs to be

more systematically encoded into digital systems of

technology-enhanced learning such as, for instance,

serious games.

When storyboarding `a la (Jantkeand Knauf, 2005)

is deployed as a design methodology, educational

theory may be reﬂected syntactically.

For illustration, have a look at the cutout of the

“Catch 22” storyboard on display in the upper part

of ﬁgure 4. The linear sequence of four episodes of

game play reﬂect the sequence of upper nodes in the

visualizations of Haidt’s social intuitionist model as

shown in ﬁgure 2.

To put it straight: some pedagogy becomes visible

and, therefore, the difference of varying educational

theories deployed may become visually perceivable.

This opens unprecedented options of debating

didactics and of experimenting with varying didactic

approaches.

The storyboard interpretation technology makes

those experiments operationally feasible, but it needs

some further completion to allow for systematic rou-

tine applications as sketched in (Arnold et al., 2013)

including the development of authoring tools.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable sup-

port by many colleagues and friends, most notably

Helmut M. Niegemann supervising the ﬁrst author’s

Ph.D. Thesis at the University of Erfurt, Germany, as

well as Jun Fujima and Sebastian Arnold being the

key designers and developers of the above mentioned

Storyboard Interpretation Technology.

REFERENCES

Alexander, C. (1979). A The Timeless Way of Building. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Angluin, D. (1980). Finding patterns common to a set of

strings. J. Computer and Systems Science, 21:46–62.

Arnold, O. (1996). Die Therapiesteuerungskomponente

einer wissensbasierten Systemarchitektur f¨ur Auf-

gaben der Prozeßf¨uhrung, volume 130 of DISKI.

St. Augustin: inﬁx.

MethodsandTechnologiesforWrapping-EducationalTheoryintoSeriousGames

501

Arnold, S., Fujima, J., Karsten, A., and Simeit, H. (2013).

Adaptive behavior with user modeling and story-

boarding in serious games. In 9th International Con-

ference on Signal Image Technology & Internet-based

Systems, Dec. 2-5, 2013, Kyoto, Japan.

Bassham, G. (2008). Critical Thinking: A Student’s Intro-

duction. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 3rd edition.

Bj¨ork, S. and Holopainen, J. (2004). Patterns in Game De-

sign. Hingham, MA, USA: Charles River Media.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience & Education. Indianapolis:

Kappa Delta Pi.

Duffy, T. M., Stinson, J., Milter, R., and Kirkley, J. (2009).

Facilitator Guidebook: Inquiry Based Learning Work-

shop. Bloomington, IN, USA: Information in Place

Inc.

Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). Educational Potential of

Computer Games. Continuum Studies in Education.

Continuum Intl. Publ. Group.

Fisher, A. (2006). Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Cam-

bridge University Press, 8th edition.

Fujima, J., Jantke, K. P., and Arnold, S. (2013). Digital

game playing as storyboard interpretation. In Pro-

ceedings of the 5th International Games Innovation

Conference (IGIC), Vancouver, BC, Canada, Oct. 1-4,

2013, pages 64–71. IEEE Consumer Electronics Soc.

Garz, D., Oser, F., and Althof, W. (1999). Moralisches

Urteil und Handeln. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Graham, J., , Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Woj-

cik, S., and Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations the-

ory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Ad-

vances in Experential Social Psychology, 47:55–130.

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S.,

and Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral do-

main. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

101(2):366–385.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A

social intuitionist approach to moral judgement. Psy-

chological Review, 108:814–834.

Jantke, K. P. (2006). Digital games that teach: A critical

analysis. Diskussionsbeitr¨age 22, TUI IfMK.

Jantke, K. P. (2007). Serious Games – eine kritische Anal-

yse. In 11. Workshop Multimedia in Bildung und

Unternehmen “eLearning and Serious Games”, TU

Ilmenau, 20./21.09.2007, pages 7–14. TU Ilmenau,

ISSN 1436-4492.

Jantke, K. P. (2009). The pattern experience evaluation pro-

gram. In Lige¸za, A. and Nalepa, G. J., editors, Proc.

DERIS 2009: Intl. Workshop on Design, Evaluation

and Reﬁnement of Intelligent Systems, November 28,

2009, Krak´ow, Poland, pages 70–75. AGH University

of Science and Technology.

Jantke, K. P. (2012). Patterns of game playing behav-

ior as indicators of mastery. In Ifenthaler, D., Es-

eryel, D., and Ge, X., editors, Assessment in Game-

Based Learning: Foundations, Innovations, and Per-

spectives, pages 85–103. New York, Heidelberg, Do-

drecht, London: Springer.

Jantke, K. P. (2013). Pedagogical patterns and didac-

tic memes for memetic design by educational story-

boarding. In Arnold, O., Spickermann, W., Spyratos,

N., and Tanaka, Y., editors, Webble Technology,

First Webble World Summit, WWS 2013, Erfurt, Ger-

many, June 2013, volume 372 of Communications in

Computer and Information Science, pages 143–154.

Springer.

Jantke, K. P. and Arnold, O. (1996). A modal temporal logic

and its models underlying variants of planning algo-

rithms. In Chittaro, L., Goodwin, S., Hamilton, H.,

and Montanari, A., editors, TIME–96, Intern. Work-

shop, Key West, FL, USA, May 19–20, 1996, pages

182–187. IEEE Computer Society Press.

Jantke, K. P. and Knauf, R. (2005). Didactic design through

storyboarding: Standard concepts for standard tools.

In Baltes, B. R., Edwards, L., and Galindo, F., editors,

Proc. 4th Int. Symposium on Information and Com-

munication Technologies, Cape Town, South Africa,

January 3–6, 2005, pages 20–25. Computer Science

Press, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.

Jin, P. and Low, R. (2011). Implications of game use for

explicit instruction. In Tobias, S. and Fletcher, J. D.,

editors, Computer Games and Instruction, chapter 15,

pages 395–416. Information Age Publishing Inc.

Kirkley, J. R., Duffy, T. M., Kirkley, S. E., and Kremer,

D. L. H. (2011). Implications of constructivism for

the design and use of serious games. In Tobias, S.

and Fletcher, J. D., editors, Computer Games and

Instruction, chapter 14, pages 371–394. Information

Age Publishing Inc.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Develop-

ment: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages. San

Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as

the Source of Learning and Development.

Leemkuil, H. and de Jong, T. (2011). Instructional support

in games. In Tobias, S. and Fletcher, J. D., editors,

Computer Games and Instruction, chapter 13, pages

353–369. Information Age Publishing Inc.

Lenerz, C. (2009). Layered languages of ludology – Eine

Fallstudie. In Beyer, A. and Kreuzberger, G., editors,

Digitale Spiele – Herausforderung und Chance, pages

35–64. Verlag Werner H¨ulsbusch.

Murphy, S., Hartigan, I., Walshe, N., Flynn, A. V., and

O’Brien, S. (2011). Merging problem-based learning

and simulation as an innovative pedagogy in nurse ed-

ucation. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 7:e141–e148.

Pedagogical Patterns Advisory Board, editor (2012). Ped-

agogical Patterns: Advice for Educators. Joseph

Bergin Software Tools.

Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgement of the Child. Lon-

don: Keagan Paul, Trench, Turbner & Co.

Sawyer, B. and Smith, P. (2008). Serious games tax-

onomy. http://www.seriousgames.org/presentations/-

serious-games-taxonomy-2008

web.pdf.

Twardy, C. R. (2004). Argument maps improve critical

thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2):95–116.

van Gelder, T. (2013). Argument mapping. In Pashler,

H., editor, Encyclopedia of the Mind. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

502